The  MfcCHANisTic  Pringiple 

AND 

The  Non-Mechanicai 


Carus 


MMMMMPwan 


WWWIlHIIWI'IMtlrOOBIUMirvOsv  ■^.•ut!  4V  :i  <i-..^  )j '!»« -<  v 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

GIFT 


From  the  Library  of 

Henry  Goldman,    Ph.D. 

1886-1972 


I^/ 


The  Mechanistic  Principle  and 
The  Non-Mechanical 


An   Inquiry   Into   Fundamentals  with  Extracts  from 
Representatives  of  Either  Side 


By 
Paul  Carus 


Chicago 

The  Open  Court  Publishing  Company 

1913 


copyright  by 

The  Open  Court  Publishing  Co. 

1913 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE  AND  THE  NON-MECHAN- 
ICAL. 

PAGE 

Mechanicalism  and  Teleology. — A  Contrast  i 

Partisan   Spirit  4 

Motion  and  Movement    10 

The  Will 15 

The   Non-Mechanical   18 

Time  and  Space 23 

Causality 29 

The  Significance  of  Form  36 

The  Self-Realization  of  Potentialities 38 

The  Dignity  of  Man 42 

Man's   Divinity  46 

The  Universal  and  the   Particular    48 

The  Divinity  of  the  Mechanical  Law  50 

MARK  TWAIN'S   PHILOSOPHY. 

What  is  Man  ? 54 

No  Merit  in  a  Machine 55 

The  Nature  of  Soul  and  Mind  58 

No   Personal  Merit  61 

Governing  Motive  Always  Self- Approval   64 

The  Nature  and  Training  of  Conscience  66 

Duty  for  Duty's  Sake 71 

The  Search  for  Truth 7Z 

The  Value  of  Training 74 

The  Figure  of  the  Gold  Ingots 77 

The  Mind  an  Independent  Machine 78 

Animal  Mind  and  Instinct 81 

Spiritual  Decision 89 

Temperament  90 

The  Ego 93 

All  Credit  Belongs  to  God 96 

LA  METTRIE'S  VIEW  OF  MAN  AS  A  MACHINE. 

Life  and  Character  of  La  Mcttrie  98 

Significance  of  His  Philosophy  lOl 


IV  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

PAGE 

Sincerity 102 

His  Significance 103 

Mechanicalism 104 

His  Methods 104 

His  Arguments 105 

Morality 108 

His  Conclusion 109 

EXTRACTS  FROM  PROF.  W.  B.  SMITH'S  ARTICLE  "PUSH? 

OR  PULL?" 

Laplace  Believes  in  Absolute  Determinism  in 

Cause  and  Effect  "Do  Not  Even  Touch  Hands" 112 

Life  Loses  Its  Meaning 112 

The  Future  Determining  the  Present   113 

The  Two  Views  Contrasted  1 14 

THE  SPIRIT  IN  THE  WHEELS:  THE  MECHANISM  OF  THE 
UNIVERSE  AS  SEEN  BY  A  THEIST. 

Dr.  Bixby's  Book 116 

The  Contrast  of  the  Old  and  New  Views 117 

In  the  New  View  There  Is  No  Room  for  God 117 

The  Machinery  of  Life 118 

Mind  Independent  of  the  Machinery 119 

The  Explanations  of  Materialism  Insufficient 120 

The  God  Problem 121 

Arguments  Against  Theism  Answered 122 

A  Worthy  Conception  of  God 123 

The  Melancholy  Teaching  of  To-day 124 

Dr.  Bixby  a  Dualist 124 


THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE  AND  THE  NON- 
MECHANICAL. 

MECHANICALISM  AND  TELEOLOGY— A  CONTRAST. 

TWO  world-conceptions  stand  in  a  strongly  marked 
contrast  to  each  other.  One  is  the  mechanistic,  the 
other  the  teleological,  and  the  struggle  between  the  two 
is  quite  severe.  It  appears  that  in  the  combat  no  quarter 
is  nor  can  be  given.  The  former  conception  is  held  mostly 
by  scientists,  by  men  of  thought  who  are  accustomed  to 
rigid  method,  by  believers  in  theory;  the  latter  by  men  of 
action,  by  jurists,  preachers,  moralists,  reformers,  poets, 
and  all  those  who  deal  with  the  human  will  in  practical  life, 
among  them  also  by  sentimentalists,  by  all  those  to  whom 
hopes  and  wishes  are  arguments. 

The  facts  of  our  experience  seem  to  favor  both  views 
in  two  different  realms;  the  world  of  inanimate  nature  is 
a  world  of  rigid  causation  where  the  laws  of  mechanics 
rule  supreme,  Init  the  world  of  human  action  seems  to  make 
an  exception.  In  the  domain  of  social  relations,  the  will 
seems  to  interfere  with  the  mechanical  processes  of  things 
and  a  new  kind  of  causation  is  introduced,  the  causation  of 
purpose.  All  mechanicalism  means  rigid  necessity  while 
the  causation  of  purpose  is  directed  by  design  and  provi- 
dent forethought. 

All  life  pursues  a  purpose;  even  the  smallest  ameba 
wants  to  live.  Its  aim  is  self-preservation,  and  this  tend- 
ency to  self-preservation  characterizes  all  life.    Each  liv- 


2  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

ing  being,  the  lowest  as  well  as  the  highest,  possesses  wants 
and  attends  to  them.  It  endeavors  to  maintain  and  pre- 
serve itself  and  to  propagate  its  kind ;  even  the  highest  and 
noblest  animal,  man,  can  do  no  more,  although  his  self- 
assertion  will  aim  at  the  perpetuation  of  his  better  self,  his 
ideals. 

How  are  we  to  explain  this  contradictory  character  of 
the  facts  with  which  we  are  confronted?  The  scientist 
claims  that  the  mechanistic  principle  is  and  must  be  true 
throughout,  and  we  are  not  prepared  to  contradict  his 
proposition.  On  the  other  hand  man  does  plan  and  de- 
sign, and  his  designs  determine  the  future.  Are  our  views 
of  purpose  in  the  domain  of  life  illusions?  We  are  told 
by  some  scientists  that  just  as  there  is  no  freedom  of  will, 
but  absolute  determinism,  so  there  is  really  no  purpose  but 
only  the  results  of  mechanical  pressure.  The  teleological 
party,  however,  takes  the  opposite  view  and  finds  purpose 
everywhere.  Even  the  world  of  push,  the  mechanical 
movements  of  the  stars,  are  said  to  be  dominated  by  the 
purpose  of  a  creator,  and  our  greatest  poets  declare  that 
ultimately  there  is  a  supreme  will  that  governs  all. 

No  one  will  deny  that  the  world  is  an  orderly  cosmos, 
that  the  domain  of  life  is  characterized  by  the  law  of  evo- 
lution, that  the  successive  stages  in  the  developmnet  of 
rational  beings  as  well  as  the  history  of  mankind  are  pre- 
determined, and  a  contemplation  of  the  facts  verifies  the 
drift  of  this  sentiment.    Schiller  says : 

"And  a  God,  too,  there  is,  a  purpose  sublime, 
Though  frail  may  be  human  endeavor. 
High  over  the  regions  of  space  and  of  time 
One  idea  supreme  rules  forever. 
While  all  things  are  shifting  and  tempest  pressed, 
Yet  the  spirit  pervading  the  change  is  at  rest." 

And  the  poet  laureate  of  the  Victorian  age  echoes  a  similar 
idea  saying: 

"Yet  I  doubt  not,  through  the  ages  one  increasing  purpose  runs, 
And  the  thoughts  of  men  are  widened  with  the  process  of  the  suns." 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  3 

This  idea  is  deeply  rooted  in  the  human  mind  and  it  is 
a  common  conviction  that  if  it  had  to  be  surrendered,  Hfe 
would  lose  its  meaning  and  the  world  would  be  as  dreary 
as  a  sterile  desert;  all  our  ideals  would  become  empty 
dreams,  religious  comfort  would  be  gone,  art  would  become 
a  vain  show  of  sensuous  beauty,  and  truth  would  change 
into  an  idle  quest  for  a  fata  morgana. 

The  two  propositions  seem  contradictory  and  yet  we 
shall  undertake  to  prove  that  in  a  certain  sense  both  are 
rigorously  true.  On  the  one  hand  we  claim  that  all  cau- 
sation is  mechanical  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  accord- 
ing to  the  mechanistic  principle;  every  cause  is  a  motion, 
every  result  is  accomplished  according  to  conditions  and 
circumstances  by  changes  of  place,  and  all  processes  that 
take  place  are  transformations.  On  the  other  hand  we 
accept  the  belief  that  not  only  men  but  even  less  highly 
organized  creatures  are  purpose-endowed  and  above  all 
that  the  regularities  of  natural  laws,  the  lawdom  of  na- 
ture, is  so  intrinsic  as  to  constitute  evolution  in  both  the 
inanimate  and  the  organized  domains  of  existence.  This 
order  of  the  universe  is  its  most  inalienable  feature  which 
shows  itself  in  a  definite  direction  of  development,  and  in 
a  growth  with  increasing  purpose,  a  predetermined  end 
or  aim  called  f<?/c.y  in  Greek,  and  though  the  world-order  is 
not  a  man-made  design,  it  may  very  well  1)e  compared  to 
a  plan  and  is  analogous  to  a  premeditated  purpose ;  it  acts 
like  one  and  may  be  represented  as  such. 

The  philosophical  term  "teleology"  is  derived  from  the 
Greek  word  telos  =  "aim,  end,  purpose,"  and  as  a  theory 
it  assumes  that  there  is  design  in  the  world.  So  far  very 
little,  if  any,  distinction  has  ])een  made  between  the  mean- 
ings "end"  as  the  aim  of  a  direction  (in  German  Zicl)  and 
"purpose"  as  a  consciously  designed  end  (in  German 
Zzveck),  but  such  a  distinction  will  1)e  necessary.  Every- 
where in  nature  we  see  mechanically  determined  ends,  Init 


4  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

not  purposive  designs.  There  is,  as  Germans  would  say, 
Zielstrebigkeit,  a  tendency  to  a  predetermined  end,  but 
no  Zzueckmdssigkeit,  no  purpose. 

If  the  mechanistic  principle  is  true,  it  stands  to  reason 
that  every  motion  in  the  universe  from  the  spinning  of  the 
tiniest  atom  to  the  development  of  the  world  as  a  whole 
must  be  dominated  by  regularity ;  everything  must  move  in 
a  harmonious  order  with  unfailing  consistency  and  toward 
a  definite  aim;  or  in  other  words  the  direction  exhibited  by 
all  motion  of  the  universe,  its  aim  and  end,  its  telos,  is  not 
superimposed  upon  it  from  the  outside  by  an  external 
power,  an  extramundane  ruler,  but  is  immanent ;  it  is  part 
and  parcel  of  the  cosmic  constitution;  it  is  as  eternal  as  all 
the  natural  laws  and  is  of  an  intrinsic  character. 

The  mechanical  laws  of  the  world  are  applications  of  a 
general  norm  and  this  norm  is  the  principle  of  consistency 
in  motion.  It  did  not  originate,  it  is  eternal;  it  is  not 
God-made,  it  is  part  and  parcel  of  God  himself.  What  in 
religious  language  people  call  God,  the  ultimate  authority 
of  conduct,  the  standard  of  truth,  the  directive  and  forma- 
tive factors  of  existence,  is  this  eternal  norm  which  con- 
stitutes the  cosmic  order.  We  might  say  that  it  is  the 
irreversible  will  of  deity  which  regulates  not  only  this  uni- 
verse of  ours  but  any  possible  universe.  It  is  the  law  of 
nature  as  we  know  it,  but  it  is  also  the  law  of  any  possible 
nature,  and  in  this  sense  it  is  supernatural  in  the  literal 
sense  of  the  term. 

PARTISAN  SPIRIT. 

The  methods  in  the  fight  between  the  two  opposing 
parties,  the  mechanicalists  and  the  teleologists,  have  not 
been  altogether  fair.  The  representatives  of  the  mechan- 
istic theory  generally  ridicule  the  other  party  as  unscien- 
tific. They  belittle  the  significance  of  the  human  will  and 
treat  the  consciousness  of  man's  own  importance  and  dig- 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  5 

nity  as  a  kind  of  megalomania.  In  comparison  with  the 
infinite  expanse  of  the  universe,  how  inconsiderable  is  this 
epiphenomenon  of  the  human  soul !  Yet  a  great  philos- 
opher who  wrote  the  first  ''General  History  and  Theory 
of  the  Heavens,"  in  which  he  expounded  "the  mechanical 
origin  of  the  whole  edifice  of  the  world,  according  to  New- 
tonian principles,"  in  recognizing  the  contrast  of  the  two 
views  expresses  his  awe  at  two  things :  outside,  the  expanse 
of  the  starry  heavens,  and  within  the  human  soul,  man's 
conscience.  The  former  is  a  type  of  corporeal  sublimity, 
the  latter  of  the  sublimity  of  moral  greatness.  This  little 
and  insignificant  inner  state  within  us,  our  own  conscious- 
ness, our  own  will,  our  own  aspirations,  and  last  not  least 
our  conscience,  the  still  small  voice  in  man  which  tells 
him  what  he  ought  to  do,  afifords  a  peep  into  the  inside  of 
nature.  In  man's  soul  appears  the  efflorescence  of  that 
enormous  material  universe,  and  here  we  have  a  revela- 
tion which  shows  us  the  meaning,  or  rather  the  end  and 
aim.  the  telos.  of  all  these  motions  and  mechanical  laws. 
There  is  no  use  in  ridiculing  the  insignificance  of  this  little 
epiphenomenon,  or  to  declare  its  growth  to  be  a  result  of 
chance;  it  is  here  and  demands  an' explanation. 

On  the  other  hand  the  representatives  of  the  teleolog- 
ical  view  are  not  less,  but  rather  more,  unfair  than  their 
adversaries.  Many  of  them  are  preachers;  they  moralize 
and  call  their  antagonists  names.  They  denounce  the  mech- 
anistic view  as  immoral,  as  irreligious,  as  lacking  respect 
for  everything  higher  and  nobler,  and  treat  it  as  an  abom- 
ination. Forceful  language  is  always  impressive  and  has 
its  advantages  in  argument,  because  it  overawes  with  a 
show  of  authority,  but  if  closely  considered  it  never  proves 
anything;  on  the  contrary,  it  raises  the  suspicion  that  the 
cause  for  which  it  is  displayed  is  not  otherwise  defensible. 
He  who  can  convince  his  opponent  by  good  arguments  will 


/ 


O  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

scarcely  call  him  names.  Only  the  man  without  reason 
turns  rude. 

As  the  mechanistic  thinkers  characterize  man's  spiritu- 
ality as  a  kind  of  by-play,  so  the  teleologists  have  only  de- 
rogatory epithets  for  nature  and  the  cosmic  constitution. 
Both  its  laws  and  its  forces  are  decried  as  "blind"  and 
"brutal,"  and  a  machine  is  denounced  as  something  utterly 
contemptible,  an  inferior  thing  that  lacks  intelligence  and 
is  dead.  While  it  is  true  enough  that  a  machine  has  no 
life  in  the  sense  of  a  living  organism,  we  ought  not  to  say 
that  its  mode  of  operation,  the  mechanism  of  its  motion, 
and  still  less  the  mechanistic  principle  according  to  which  it 
moves,  is  low  or  contemptible.  On  the  contrary  a  machine 
is  a  triumph  of  mind,  and  it  utilizes  that  grand  constitution 
of  the  cosmos,  its  mechanical  law,  for  a  certain  purpose 
which  serves  human  needs.  The  laws  themselves  which 
are  applied  in  the  construction  of  machinery  and  which 
machines  blindly  obey  have  no  eyes  as  human  creatures 
have,  but  it  would  be  wrong  to  have  them  characterized  as 
blind.  We  might  as  well  say  that  mathematics  is  dumb 
and  dull  because  there  is  not  any  mathematics  in  itself  pos- 
sessing ears  and  the  faculty  of  speech  or  other  qualities  of 
a  living  person.  We  know  that  it  has  not  the  conscious- 
ness of  mathematical  theorems  after  the  fashion  of  a  pro- 
fessor. Surely  it  is  wrong  to  denounce  these  laws  in  terms 
of  contempt.  If  we  do  not  understand  how  to  make  a 
proper  use  of  them,  they  are  not  brutal,  but  we  are  lacking 
in  intelligence  and  suffer  from  our  own  shortcomings. 

The  theist's  accusation  that  the  laws  of  nature  are 
brutal  might  be  turned  against  his  anthropomorphic  God 
with  much  greater  propriety,  for  if  the  forces  of  nature  are 
brutal  in  allowing  terrible  accidents  to  happen  in  which 
many  lives  are  lost,  what  shall  be  said  of  a  God,  endowed 
with  an  ego-consciousness  and  expecting  to  be  worshiped 
by  his  creatures  as  all-wise,  all-good,  all-merciful,  and  also 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  7 

as  all-powerful?  The  forces  of  nature  are  forever  the 
same,  they  serve  the  thoughtful  if  used  properly,  they  de- 
stroy the  thoughtless  who  do  not  utilize  them  to  advantage. 
But  think  of  a  father  who  watches  his  children  and  allows 
them  to  drown  without  a  warning,  to  be  wrecked  in  foolish 
ventures,  to  burn  to  death  or  to  perish  in  innumerable  ways 
— simply  for  mysterious,  presumably  educational  reasons! 
If  that  be  the  action  of  a  fatherly  God,  of  a  God  who  in 
human  fashion  with  a  clear  omniscient  consciousness 
knows  what  he  is  doing,  how  shall  we  characterize  his 
providence  after  having  denounced  natural  forces  as  bru- 
tal ?> 

The  laws  of  nature  are  certainly  not  personalities,  as 
the  Greeks  describe  their  gods  in  myth  and  fable.  But  while 
we  do  not  believe  that  generalizations  are  conscious  be- 
ings, we  know  that  certain  configurations  of  conditions 
produce  results  of  a  definite  kind  and  the  so-called  laws 
of  these  conditions  are  truths;  they  are  certain  norms  in 
the  objective  world,  in  the  world  of  realities.  These  norms 
are  highly  significant  as  efficient  factors  which  in  the  wide 
illimitable  range  of  our  experience  have  never  belied  our 
confidence  in  them;  they  determine  the  uniformities  of  phe- 
nomena with  an  intrinsic  necessity;  they  make  the  world 
intelligible  and  are  therefore  illuminating.  As  they  do  not 
obscure  the  world  but  guide  the  course  of  nature,  the  woi 
"blind"  is  misleading.  Remember  that  these  blind  brut 
norms  of  nature  have  produced  the  rationality  of  man,  his 
foresight  and  his  humanity. 

The  mechanistic  idea  is  a  demand  of  science  which  can- 
not be  refused.  If  causation  prevails  at  all  it  must  be  me- 
chanical, but  it  has  taken  mankind  thousands  of  years 
before  this  consequence  of  mechanicalism  as  a  universal 
principle  was  stated  in  plain  terms,  and  the  first  thinker 
who  ventured  to  pronounce  it  clearly  and  boldly  was  Julien 
Offrav  de  la  Mettrie. 


ot 

u 

IS       • 


8  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

La  Mettrie  wrote  a  book  entitled  L'homme  machine 
(published  in  August,  1747^),  in  which  he  defends  the 
proposition  that  man  is  a  machine  in  the  sense  in  which 
Descartes  had  claimed  that  animals  are  automata. 

La  Mettrie's  book  is  wattily  written,  but  its  arguments 
are  somewhat  crudely  presented  and  we  can  not  say  that 
the  author  has  handled  his  thesis  in  the  proper  spirit.  He 
does  not  enter  into  the  finer  problems  of  intellectual  and 
ideal  life,  and  has  not  without  reason  been  accused  of  vul- 
garity. Nevertheless  we  must  recognize  the  boldness  of 
his  thought,  and  the  heroic  stand  which  he  takes  on  a 
subject  which  was  extremely  unpopular  and  subjected  the 
author  to  much  persecution.^ 

La  Mettrie's  book  shocked  the  world;  its  author  was 
almost  universally  condemned  and  the  book  itself  was  de- 
nounced as  the  most  infamous  production  of  the  human 
brain.  Only  a  few  great  minds,  foremost  among  them 
Frederick  the  Great,  stood  up  for  the  lonely  freethinker. 

La  Mettrie's  proposition  was  by  no  means  absolutely 
new,  for  the  mechanistic  principle  is  an  old  scientific  ideal. 
The  oldest  philosophers  we  know  of,  the  Ionian  physicists 
and  also  Heraclitus,  Democritus,  Leucippus,  and  Epicurus, 
attempted  to  construct  a  world-conception  on  scientific 
grounds  and  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  cosmos  on  mech- 
anistic principles.  It  is  a  consistent  conclusion  of  thought 
to  explain  everything  mechanically,  but  our  scientists  were 
not  always  conscious  of  it  as  the  sine  qua  non  of  a  scien- 
tific comprehension.  Among  the  Romans  the  philosophy 
of  Epicurus  was  upheld  by  T.  Lucretius  Carus  in  his  well- 
known  philosophical  poem  De  Rerum  Natura,  but  Cicero 
in  his  many  writings  repudiated  both  Epicurus  and  Lucre- 

*The  imprint  on  the  title  page  reads  1748.  See  Bergmann,  Die  Satiren 
des  Herrn  Maschine,  p.  14. 

*La  Mettrie's  little  book  L'homme  machine  has  been  recently  published 
in  French  and  English  by  the  Open  Court  Publishing  Company,  under  the 
title  Man  A  Machine. 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  9 

tius  and  treated  them  with  contempt  as  if  they  were  below 
refutation.  In  consequence  of  this  unpopularity  the  works 
of  Epicurus  are  now  lost  while  the  poem  of  Lucretius  has 
probably  survived  only  because  of  its  literary  merits. 

During  the  Middle  Ages  the  scientific  method  of  ex- 
plaining life  was  entirely  extinct,  but  with  the  Renaissance, 
the  mechanistic  conception  began  gradually  to  revive. 
Leonardo  da  Vinci  seems  to  have  seen  its  significance 
and  Descartes  actually  speaks  of  animals  as  living  ma- 
chines, without  however  drawing  the  consistent  conclusion 
that  if  animals  are  machines  man  himself  must  be  a  ma- 
chine too.  Here,  however,  he  halts,  and  while  he  claims 
that  man  has  a  soul,  by  which  he  understands  a  kind  of 
super-mechanical  principle,  he  regards  all  other  animals 
as  soulless. 

The  mechanistic  conception  also  found  a  most  prom- 
inent supporter  in  Kant,  who  wrote  his  famous  book  on 
the  "History  of  the  Starry  Heavens"  in  which  he  claims 
that,  given  matter  in  any  chaotic  state,  he  would  show 
how  on  the  principle  of  Newtonian  laws  an  orderly  world 
like  our  own  would  develop  from  it. 

Kant  discussed  the  problem  of  the  relation  of  God  to 
mechanical  laws  but  it  would  take  too  nmch  space  here  to 
enter  into  details,  nor  would  a  discussion  of  the  subject  be 
profitable  in  so  far  as  Kant's  conception  of  God  has  not 
been  clearly  defined.'^ 

In  modern  times  many  scientists,  among  them,  e.  g., 
Jacques  Loeb  of  New  York,  have  taken  the  same  stand  as 
La  Mettrie,  and  we  will  mention  also  that  Mark  Twain, 
America's  greatest  humorist,  has  joined  their  cause.  We 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  progress  in  scientific  discovery 

*  In  defending  the  mechanistic  explanation  Kant  does  not  deny  God,  but 
his  explanations  are  stilted  and  difficult  to  condense.  He  opposes  vigorously 
the  view  held  by  Epicurus  and  other  materialists  that  the  world  order  is  the 
result  of  chance.  In  Gustav  Wegner's  Kantlexikon  extracts  on  the  subject 
appear  on  p.  239  (No.  338)  under  the  caption  "Die  Welt  von  Gott  belcbt  odcr 
ein  Gott  in  der  Maschine." 


/ 


10  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

and  in  the  explanation  of  nature's  deepest  problems  is  pos- 
sible only  by  a  strict  adhesion  to  the  mechanistic  principle. 

MOTION  AND  MOVEMENT. 

Let  us  distinguish  between  motions  and  movements.  By 
movements  we  understand  the  passive  condition  of  being 
moved,  while  by  motion  we  understand  an  active  push. 
There  is  a  common  view  that  purely  physical  nature  has 
no  self-action,  that  it  is  moved.  A  horse  or  an  animal 
may  move  about  by  its  innate  power,  while  a  cart  is  being 
moved  by  the  pull  of  the  horse.  The  horse  is  alive,  the 
cart  is  dead,  and  the  changes  which  we  observe  in  purely 
physical  nature  are  frequently  interpreted  to  be  movements 
not  motions.     But  is  this  really  the  case? 

The  chemical  combinations  of  atoms  according  to  their 
affinities  are  active  motions  in  which  different  elements 
join,  not  because  they  are  pushed  by  a  power  from  the  out- 
side, but  because  in  their  innate  nature  they  possess  a  tend- 
ency to  combine  with  definite  other  atoms,  and  one  affinity 
is  overpowered  by  another  stronger  affinity,  so  that  atoms 
far  from  being  pushed  and  passively  pressed  into  combina- 
tions, are  themselves  actively  pushing;  they  seek  and  i\ee 
each  other  under  definite  circumstances  according  to  defi- 
nite laws,  which  laws  however  are  nothing  but  general 
formulas  descriptive  of  the  character  of  the  atoms.  The 
atoms  are  the  actors  in  this  case,  and  the  laws  of  nature 
simply  describe  what  the  actors  will  do  under  definite  con- 
ditions. We  have  good  reasons  to  believe  that  the  affinities 
of  the  various  elements  will  have  to  be  explained  ultimately 
from  the  forms  of  the  atoms. 

We  will  here  incidentally  remind  the  reader  that  the 
name  "laws  of  nature"  is  really  a  gross  misnomer.  The 
laws  of  nature  are  formulas;  they  are  descriptions,  gen- 
eralizations, or  uniformities.  They  are  called  laws  because 
formerly  they  were  supposed  to  be  enactments  of  a  ruler, 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  II 

they  were  thought  to  be  the  ukases  of  a  czar,  or  the  Good 
Lord's  pohce  regulations.     But  they  are  not  laws  super- 
imposed upon  the  phenomena  which  they  describe.     The 
laws  of  nature  do  not  compel  things  to  act,  but  they  are        / 
merely  formulas  of  human  invention,  contrivances  to  char-      / 
acterize  things,  and  to  describe  in  general  terms  what  cer-    • 
tain  things,  chemical  elements  or  what  not,  will  do  under 
definite  conditions.     The  word  "law"  is  an  inappropriate 
term  and  has  proved  misleading  because  it  suggests  the 
idea  that  all  things  in  the  world  suffer  under  the  compul- 
sion of  an  outside  power,  whereas  in  fact  the  several  ob- 
jects of  existence  do  the  acting  themselves,  and  their  acting- 
is  uniform  under  the  same  conditions.    Things  act,  and  the 
so-called   laws  of  nature  describe,   they  do  not  compel.    / 
Things  act  as  they  are,  and  they  act  of  themselves  in  agree- 
ment with  their  own  nature,  not  because  there  is  a  vis  a 
tergo,  a  mysterious  power  that  pushes  them. 

In  the  realm  of  living  beings  analogous  conditions  pre- 
vail ;  the  cat  will  catch  mice  because  that  is  her  nature,  and 
■  the  bird  of  prey  will  swoop  down  upon  the  quarry,  not 
because  he  is  under  compulsion,  but  because  he  is  hungry 
and  wants  a  breakfast.  A  thief  will  steal  whenever  the 
opportunity  is  offered,  and  an  honest  man  will  act  honestly 
in  accordance  with  his  principles.  There  is  no  law  nor  any 
metaphysical  agency,  that  forces  them  to  act;  they  act  in 
a  special  way,  because  that  is  their  desire.  All  things  will 
act  according  to  their  nature  unless  artificially  interfered 
with,  and  it  will  be  obvious  that  all  motions  are  the  expres- 
sions of  the  nature  of  things  which  move,  while  all  move- 
ments originate  by  a  transference  of  energy.  The  objects 
on  which  motions  act  are  in  a  passive  state :  in  their  move- 
ments they  suffer  interference  by  an  outside  force.  All 
'motions  are  free,  which  means  they  result  from  the  nature 
of  the  acting  things;  all  luovements  are  due  to  compulsion 
and  both  take  place  with  mechanical  necessity. 


12  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

It  becomes  obvious  that  while  there  are  movements  in 
the  world  there  must  also  be  motions,  for  every  movement 
is  caused  by  a  motion.  Movements  could  never  originate 
from  themselves.  The  thing  being  moved  suffers  violence 
by  another  thing  which  does  the  active  moving.  Where  a 
motion  takes  place  there  must  have  been  a  certain  amount 
of  stored  up  energy  that  is  set  free  by  some  cause  or  other, 
and  wherever  there  is  a  movement  it  must  have  acquired  its 
momentum  from  a  motion.  Accordingly  the  ultimate  start 
of  the  world  in  its  simplest  and  most  rudimentary  begin- 
ning, must  be  due  to  a  motion  and  can  not  have  been  a 
movement.  Gravity  can  not  be  due  to  a  push  from  the 
outside  as  Lesage  tried  to  explain  it.  If  however  Lesage's 
interpretation  were  right,  the  pushing  corpuscles  would 
be  the  actors  endowed  with  an  intrinsic  power  of  motion. 
The  ultimate  cause  of  the  start  of  the  world  process — if  there 
was  any  definite  start  at  all,  if  the  world  process  is  not 
eternal — may  have  been  the  contraction  of  the  ether  into 
molar  matter,  into  atoms  first  of  the  lighter,  then  of  the 
heavier  elements,  as  we  see  them  originate  in  some  stellar 
nebulas.  Assuming  that  this  contraction  is  a  commotion 
in  the  primordial  world-stuff  it  will  naturally  cause  move- 
ments by  pull  or  push,  and  the  whole  world  becomes  a  com- 
bination of  motions  and  movements. 

One  difference  between  a  machine  and  a  living  organ- 
ism is  exactly  this,  that  a  machine  makes  movements  while 
an  organism  manifests  itself  in  motions ;  but  both  are  me- 
j  chanical  and  the  law  according  to  which  they  move  is  in 
either  case  in  rigid  agreement  with  the  mechanistic  prin- 
ciple. Closely  considered  this  means  nothing  more  than 
that  there  are  no  haphazard  motions  but  everything  that 
moves  is  regulated  in  its  activity  by  harmonious  uniform- 
itv. 

Schopenhauer  declares  that  the  fall  of  the  stone  is 
practically  the  same  as  the  will  of  man,  and  we  do  not  hesi- 


I 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  I3 

late  to  say  that  the  will  of  man  is  an  incipient  motion  ac- 
companied with  consciousness ;  it  is  a  tendency  in  an  organ- 
ism to  move,  it  is  the  decision  to  do  a  certain  thing.  The 
difference  between  an  act  of  the  wall  and  the  fall  of  a  stone 
is  simply  this,  that  the  stone  moves  purely  by  gravity, 
while  the  will  of  man  is  determined  by  a  motor  idea,  by  a 
thought  of  accomplishing  a  purpose;  and  this  motor  idea 
is  a  tendency  within  the  man,  not  a  pressure  outside  of 
the  man.  It  is  a  push  from  within,  not  a  pull  from  without, 
and  since  both  the  fall  of  a  stone  and  the  will  of  man  are 
incipient  motions,  we  can  wath  a  poetical  license  allow 
Schopenhauer's  saying  to  stand  that  the  stone  has  the  will 
to  fall ;  only  the  stone  is  unconscious,  w'hile  a  man  in  action 
is  pushing  consciously.  In  him  the  motor  idea  acts  as 
much  as  gravity  in  the  falling  stone,  and  both  act  accord- 
ing to  mechanical  laws — the  laws  of  motion. 

In  line  with  Schopenhauer's  idea  that  gravity  is  to  be 
classed  together  wath  the  will  of  man,  we  may  conclude 
that  gravitation  is  inexplicable  except  on  a  teleological 
principle,  that  gravitating  bodies  have  a  certain  will,  that 
they  are  not  driven,  not  passively  pushed,  but  that  they 
actively  push  with  an  inherent  energy  towards  an  aim, 
and  W'C  can  not  help  thinking  that  in  a  certain  sense  this 
is  true.  At  any  rate  we  are  inclined  to  regard  gravity  as 
a  motion,  not  as  a  movement. 

Among  the  explanations  of  gravity  we  see  only  one 
which  seems  tenable;  namely  that  all  matter  has  originated 
by  a  condensation  of  the  ether,  the  ether  being  the  original 
material  from  which  the  world  has  been  knitted  into  a 
seus-e--perceptible  form.  Now  if  the  ether  is,  as  is  gen- 
erally assumed,  a  continuous  and  immeasurably  elastic  me- 
dium, and  if  atoms,  or  perhaps  even  their  ultimate  con- 
stituents, ions,  or  electrons,  or  whatever  we  may  call  them, 
are  little  whirls  producing  some  condensation,  we  are  driven 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  ether  surrounding  every  such 


J 


I 


r 


14  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

condensation  is  thinned  out,  and  so  every  tiny  whirl  pro- 
duces a  tension  all  around  its  center — which  tension,  ac- 
cording to  a  priori  considerations  of  the  nature  of  space, 
must  exert  a  stress  in  the  surrounding  ether  on  all  other 
such  centers  of  concentration  in  direct  proportion  to  the 
amount  thus  concentrated  and  kept  in  tension  (constituting 
mass)  and  the  inverse  square  of  their  distance;  and  this 
fulfils  the  conditions  of  the  Newtonian  law  of  gravitation. 

If  this  be  so,  all  matter  is  but  a  form  of  ether,  due  to 
condensations  accompanied  according  to  mechanical  laws, 
with  attenuations  causing  the  tension  between  the  con- 
tracted portions.  Matter  would  thus  have  originated 
through  the  resistance  which  the  ether  offers  to  a  commo- 
tion whirling  through  its  immeasurable  ocean.  Matter 
then  would  not  be  dead  stuft,  but  must  represent  an  active 
reaction,  in  which  its  latent  qualities  are  set  free,  and  grav- 
ity would  be  a  motion,  not  a  movement.  It  would  ulti- 
mately be  a  strain  between  two  or  more  centers  exercising 
a  pull,  and  this  pull  would  not  come  from  the  outside  but 
reside  in  the  strained  condition  of  the  contracted  ether 
masses. 

The  tension  would  neither  proceed  from  the  masses 
alone  nor  reside  in  them  alone,  it  would  prevail  in  the  whole 
system.  The  cause  of  the  origin  of  mass  producing  the 
tension  between  masses  might  be  compared  to  a  cramp  in 
the  ether.  This  theory  presupposes  that  the  whole  world, 
the  whole  ether-saturated  ocean  of  existence,  is  one  great 
coherent  system  of  whirls,  and  necessarily  the  state  of 
strain  in  this  immeasurable  ocean  of  ether  would  be  simul- 
taneous, which  means  the  strain  obtains  between  two  or 
more  or  immeasurably  many  centers  of  gravitation,  and 
wherever  there  are  changes  through  a  changed  interrela- 
tion the  whole  strain  changes  simultaneously.  There  is 
not  a  change  at  one  end  which  is  transferred  to  the  other 
end;  the  entire  state  changes  and  affects  both  ends,  indeed 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  I5 

all  ends,  at  once.  Hence  we  may  expect  gravitation  to  be 
a  force  which  is  sinmltaneous  in  its  action;  or  in  other 
words,  gravitation  does  not  take  any  time  to  travel  from 
place  to  place. 

We  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  by  a  priori  reasoning 
that  ultimatelv  there  resides  in  all  realitv,  and  indeed  in 
every  particle  of  existence,  an  active  power  which  moves 
and  asserts  its  own  being  according  to  the  form  of  its* 
nature.  It  stands  to  reason  that  such  is  the  case,  only  we 
must  bear  in  mind  that  an  intrinsic  and  positive  self-motion 
should  not  be  regarded  as  arbitrary,  but  as  conditioned  by 
its  own  form  and  surroundings,  which  relations  are  mathe- 
matically determinable.  The  principle  that  everything  is 
moved  by  a  push  from  the  outside,  by  a  vis  a  tcrgo,  and  that 
all  things  are  inert  and  are  moved  about  in  a  passive  state 
is  unthinkable. 

We  see  in  the  world-play  a  self-activity  which  must 
have  been  active  from  the  very  beginning,  and  we  feel 
compelled  to  believe  that  the  very  simplest  and  most  primi- 
tive, the  primordial  commotions  which  start  the  origin  of 
siderial  systems,  must  be  intrinsically  autonomous  or  self-  / 
moving.  There  is  an  innate  tendency  of  motion,  a  vis  viva 
as  former  physicists  used  to  say,  in  all  existence  and  there 
is  nothing  real  that  is  not  actuated  by  such  an  inherent 
power. 

THE  WILL. 

In  the  world  of  human  life  there  is  a  distinction  similar 
to  that  in  the  realm  of  physics.  The  real  active  will  is  an 
incipient  motion,  but  there  are  also  movements;  and  by 
movements  in  the  domain  of  organized  life  we  understand 
the  actions  of  those  who  are  influenced  by  others,  the  people 
whose  minds  have  been  taken  captive  by  a  leader.  It  is  a 
special  art  to  guide  great  multitudes  and  inspire  them  with 


l6  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

a  motor  idea  that  may  turn  out  to  be  a  powerful  event  in 
human  history. 

It  is  sometimes  just  as  difficult  to  distinguish  between 
motion  and  movement  in  the  world  of  life  as  in  the  world 
of  physics,  and  so  it  happens  frequently  that  the  very  lead- 
ers have  received  their  impulse  from  others,  from  their 
predecessors.  Here  too  it  might  seem  at  first  sight  that  there 
is  only  movement  and  no  motion  whatever,  for  all  motor 
ideas  have  been  impressed  from  the  outside ;  and  on  analy- 
zing the  most  original  leaders  in  the  world's  history  we 
shall  be  able  to  trace  the  sources  of  their  ideals.  The  ex- 
ponents of  world-movements  are  mostly  the  results  of  the 
movements  which  they  lead,  not  their  causes.  A  certain 
need  produces  a  want.  The  want  clamors  for  relief  and 
grows  into  a  demand  and  the  demand  finds  a  spokesman 
for  reform.  Mostly  it  is  true  that  while  we  think  we  are 
pushing,  we  are  being  pushed,  as  a  German  saying  runs, 
Du  glaubst  zu  schiehen,  und  du  wirst  geschoben. 

Nevertheless  what  is  true  of  the  physical  world  is  true 
of  the  world  of  human  endeavor.  All  movement  presup- 
poses motion.  There  must  be  a  source  of  active  energy 
back  of  any  passive  movement. 

What  is  superimposed  from  the  outside  by  an  extrane- 
ous influence  is  not  the  energy  of  a  movement  but  its  di- 
rection. There  are  great  amounts  of  energy  stored  up  in 
the  multitudes  of  the  people,  and  wherever  there  are  rea- 
sons for  discontent  their  minds  become  inflamed  and  they 
can  easily  be  guided  by  promises  and  the  expectation  of  the 
fulfilment  of  their  hopes. 

The  presence  of  the  will  in  the  souls  of  men  is  not  a 
theory  but  a  fact,  and  those  who  have  to  deal  with  people 
in  a  practical  way  and  in  actual  life  know  it  and  act  ac- 
cordingly. Therefore  the  teleological  view  finds  defenders 
among  men  of  a  practical  turn  of  mind.  They  take  into 
account  aspirations,  intentions,  hopes  and  fears;  they  lead 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  I7 

and  direct  them  as  they  deem  desirable;  they  scarcely  in- 
vestigate the  nature  of  the  will,  but  they  know  that  it 
exists ;  they  take  account  of  it  as  if  there  were  no  hitch  in 
an  intellectual  comprehension  of  the  will. 

According  to  the  nature  of  different  impulses  historic 
movements  are  guided  or  battled  against,  suppressed  or 
favored.  Considering  that  this  is  a  fact  of  experience,  who 
will  deny  the  existence  of  the  will,  of  human  endeavor,  and 
other  teleological  phenomena  ?  We  need  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  will  and  purpose  are  a  matter  of  direct  experience  in 
the  world  of  human  life;  or  can  we  really  declare  that  all 
our  longings  and  desires  are  mere  illusions?  Can  it  be 
true  that  we  imagine  that  we  act  ourselves  while  in  truth 
we  are  acted  upon  by  impulses  as  by  a  vis  a  tergo,  just  as 
the  wheels  of  an  engine  are  turned  by  steam  ?  We  answer 
that  the  will  in  man  is  no  fiction;  it  is  a  real  and  actual 
force;  it  is  the  motor  power  in  us,  but  it  moves  with 
machinelike  precision.  This  may  seem  paradoxical,  but  it 
is  not,  and  to  explain  this  paradox  is  the  main  problem  of 
modern  thought;  in  fact  this  has  been  the  great  question 
of  philosophy  ever  since  science  dawned  upon  mankind. 

The  main  trouble  rises  from  the  great  interests  that 
are  at  stake.  If  man  is  a  machine,  or  less  figuratively 
spoken,  if  all  his  actions  are  mechanical,  i.  e.,  subject  to  the 
same  laws  as  machinelike  motions,  does  he  not  cease  to  be 
accountable,  does  he  not  sink  to  the  lowest  level  of  inani- 
mate nature,  and  does  he  not  lose  his  dignity  as  a  man,  as  a 
creature  developed  in  the  image  of  God,  an  incarnation  of 
the  deity?  This  fear  has  bewildered  even  sober  thinkers 
and  produces  an  otherwise  inexplicable  confusion  of 
thought,  so  as  to  excogitate  on  the  most  flimsy  arguments 
theories  of  the  nature  of  man  as  different  from  other  crea- 
tures, so  that  man's  actions  are  believed  to  be  of  a  myste- 
rious supernatural  kind  and  not  subject  to  the  universal 
laws  of  motion. 


l8  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

We  believe,  and  if  we  wish  to  be  consistent  we  can 
not  help  believing,  that  all  motions  in  this  world,  and  in 
any  possible  world,  move  in  agreement  with  the  laws  of 
motion.  In  other  words,  all  phenomena  of  motion  take 
place  according  to  the  mechanistic  principle.  This  is  really 
a  tautology;  motions  are  mechanical  and  the  atoms  of  a 
brain  move  and  can  not  help  moving  in  a  definite  way  pre- 
scribed by  the  laws  of  motion,  just  as  a  stone  falls  to  the 
ground  and  as  the  comets  sweep  through  the  heavens  in 
perfect  agreement  with  the  laws  of  gravitation.  However 
this  truth  is  not  contradicted  by  the  fact  that  every  living 
being,  and  especially  man,  is  endowed  with  purpose. 

In  the  history  of  mankind  all  our  movements  of  reform, 
all  our  life  and  almost  every  detail  of  intellectual  activity 
is  purposive.  We  make  ideals  and  we  follow  them  up,  we 
fight  for  them,  and  we  accomplish  our  aims  or  fail.  We 
see  in  the  whole  world  of  living  beings  a  new  creation  of 
intellectual  aspirations,  resting  upon  the  purely  physical 
domain  of  existence.  Will  is  not  a  mere  delusion  but  it  is 
a  positive  and  undeniable  fact. 

We  have  devoted  much  thought  to  the  problem  and 
have  reached  a  definite,  and  in  our  opinion,  a  final  solu- 
tion. Here  in  the  face  of  these  two  contrasts  we  will  out- 
line our  position  as  briefly  as  we  can. 

THE  NON-MECHANICAL. 

We  have  always  been  careful  to  say  that  the  laws  of 
mechanics  apply  to  all  motions,  and  we  add  now  that  they 
do  not  apply  to  conditions,  or  states,  or  qualities  of  things 
and  thoughts  which  are  not  motions. 

The  mechanistic  scientist  as  a  rule  overlooks  the  truth 
that  although  all  phenomena  of  motion  are  determined  by 
the  laws  of  motion,  there  are  features  in  this  world  which 
are  not  motions.  As  such  features  w^e  designate  mainly  the 
entire  psychological  realm  of  feeling,  and  in  this  realm  of 


/ 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  I9 

feeling-  there  lies  the  domain  of  mind,  viz.,  the  significance 
of  feeling. 

First  of  all,  what  is  a  motion?    A  motion  is  a  change         / 
of  place,  and  changes  of  place  belong  to  the  objective  realm       ^ 
of  bodily  things.    So  far  as  we  are  bodies  we  move  about, 
but  so  far  as  we  consist  of  sentiments  and  thoughts,  motion 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  nature  of  our  soul. 

Now  we  will  ask,  what  is  feeling?  One  thing  must  be 
granted:  Feeling  is  not  motion  and  motion  is  not  feeling. 
We  can  not  by  any  amount  of  logical  or  dialectic  somer- 
saults derive  feeling  from  motion,  nor  motion  from  feeling. 
Things  which  originate  from  combination  can  not  possess 
qualities  which  are  alien  to  the  whole  class.  A  machine 
can  not  move  unless  there  is  a  source  of  energy,  and  an 
object  can  not  have  weight  unless  its  parts  are  material. 
New  qualities  originate,  but  they  originate  by  combination 
and  according  to  the  laws  of  form.  In  Buddhist  philosophy 
such  structures  are  called  in  Pali  Sankhara,  and  in  San- 
skrit Samskara,  which  has  been  quite  properly  translated 
in  German  Gestaltung,  and  in  English  "conformation." 

The  disparity  between  motion  and  feeling  was  recog-  i 
nized  very  clearly  in  ancient  India  in  both  religions, 
Brahmanism  and  Buddhism.  The  truth  that  motion  is  not 
feeling,  and  feeling  is  not  motion,  is  explained  by  the  ex- 
ample of  a  lame  man  and  a  blind  man.  The  two  -go  trav- 
eling together,  the  blind  man  with  sound  limbs  (represent- 
ing motion  or  objectivity)  can  move  about  and  he  takes 
the  lame  man  (consciousness  or  subjectivity  of  feeling) 
upon  his  shoulders  to  direct  him  in  his  motions.  Neither 
could  travel  by  himself  alone,  but  the  two  together  mu- 
tually serve  each  other."* 

From  such  considerations  of  the  disparity  between  mo- 
tion and  feeling  modern  thinkers  (T  mention  here  first  of 

*  Visuddhitnagga,  Chap.  XVIH.  Subjectivity  is  called  "name"  and  ob- 
jectivity "form."  Both  together  (called  "name-form"  or  in  Pali  namorufo) 
constitute  the  personality  of  man. 


/ 


20  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

all  Clifford)  have,  quite  independently  of  the  philosophers 
of  ancient  India,  come  to  the  same  conclusion  that  feeling 
can  not  have  originated  from  either  matter  or  motion,  but 
its  conditions  must  have  existed  in  a  latent  state  in  the 
nature  of  existence  from  the  beginning.  In  other  words, 
matter  can  not  be  merely  the  inert  mass,  and  motion  the 
dead  change  of  place  they  appear  upon  superficial  observa- 
tion, but  must  contain  the  condition  of  consciousness,  the 
germ  of  life  as  it  blossoms  forth  in  sentient  creatures. 

Leibnitz  called  attention  to  the  radical  difference  be- 
tween psychic  states  and  objective  bodies.  If  we  could  look 
into  a  brain,  and  could  have  it  magnified  so  as  to  be  able 
to  watch  the  cerebral  mechanism,  yea  if  we  could  have  it 
so  greatly  magnified  that  we  could  walk  into  the  nervous 
structures  and  trace  the  processes  of  thought,  we  would 
see  particles  jostling  one  another  and  the  impressions  re- 
ceived would  be  similar  to  those  which  we  have  when  in- 
specting a  mill  or  the  complicated  machinery  of  a  factory, 
but  we  would  see  only  motions  of  material  particles,  we 
would  nowhere  detect  feelings,  or  thoughts,  or  sentiments. 
And  why  could  we  discover  not  the  least  trace  of  feel- 
rings  ?  Simply  because  feelings  and  sentiments  and  thoughts 
I  are  subjective  phenomena ;  they  are  inner  conditions,  they 
L  are  states  of  awareness.  What  our  senses  can  see  and  ob- 
serve and  recognize  are  only  objects  and  objective  proces- 
ses, and  these  processes  will  always  present  themselves  as 
matter  in  motion.  If  a  guide  accompanied  us  through  the 
factory  of  a  human  brain,  he  might  tell  us  what  the  differ- 
ent functions  accomplish.  Let  us  assume  that  he  would 
say,  "Where  the  machinery  begins  to  glow  and  emits  a 
dim  light,  the  activity  of  the  jostling  particles  acquires 
awareness,  and  in  yonder  place  where  this  glow  accom- 
panies the  motion  that  starts  the  machinery  of  certain 
muscles,  there  are  the  operations  of  purposive  will."  In 
this  way  we  might  learn  to  decipher  the  meaning  of  the 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  21 

several  motions,  but  for  all  that  we  would  neither  see  will, 
nor  awareness,  nor  purpose. 

Meaning-  is  the  most  subtle  quality  with  which  feeling  / 
can  be  endowed  and  just  as  other  feelings  are  impalpable  / 
and  invisible,  so  meaning  can  never  be  an  object  of  sense. 
If  we  read  a  book  we  decipher  the  letters  and  the  words. 
The  printed  letters  are  symbols  which  reveal  their  mean- 
ing to  the  initiated,  but  the  meaning  itself  is  not  a  material 
nor  a  mechanical  quality,  and  therefore  by  no  chemical 
analysis  of  the  paper  or  the  printer's  ink  could  the  least 
trace  of  the  meaning  be  discovered.  Mind  alone  can  de- 
cipher meaning  in  the  syml^ols  which  it  ensouls. 

The  physical  phenomena  which  we  observe  in  the  ob- 
jective world  are  objective,  but  feelings  are  subjective, 
and  thus  we  must  recognize  that  objective  existence  is  not 
all  of  nature.  There  is  another  aspect  which  is  the  psychic  * 
side  of  it,  the  inside  of  things ;  and  this  inside,  this  subjec- 
tivity of  existence,  furnishes  the  elements  from  which 
under  given  conditions  feelings  originate. 

These  two  features,  feeling-  and  motion,  have  sometimes 
been  described  as  parallel  to  each  other;  and  sometimes 
feeling  has  been  called  an  epiphenomenon  of  objective  real- 
ity; and  again  the  two  have  been  treated  as  identical,  as 
one  and  the  same  thing,  either  with  a  spiritualistic  or  a  . 
materialistic  tendency. 

If  the  argument  of  the  parallelism  of  feeling  and  motion 
is  reliable,  we  must  assume  that  on  the  one  hand  every  ob- 
jective existence  possesses  a  subjectivity  of  its  own,  how- 
ever low  it  may  be  in  the  purely  physical  domain ;  that  oru 
the  other  hand  every  subjective  state  has  its  objective  reali^ 
zation,  and  the  two  correspond  exactly,  for  they  are  the' 
two  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  thing,  as  are  the  inside 
and  the  outside  of  a  curve.  We  look  upon  them  as  not  the 
same  but  as  inseparably  belonging  to  each  other,  as  anal- 
ogous, as  two  different  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  reality. 


22  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

In  a  perfected  state  of  physiology,  we  may  be  able  to 
trace  the  transformations  that  take  place  in  cerebral  proc- 
esses, and  thus  we  may,  on  inspecting  the  commotions  in 
the  brain,  mechanically  explain  how  one  feeling  originates 
after  another,  and  how  the  same  forms  of  cerebral  activity 
are  associated  with  the  same  kinds  of  feelings,  but  we  have 
no  means  of  explaining  mechanically  the  nature  of  feelings. 
The  ophthalmologist  for  instance  may  trace  the  different 
states  of  color  sensations,  but  on  the  one  hand  he  will  find 
no  trace  of  the  idea  of  motion  in  either  red,  or  green,  or 
yellow  or  other  color  sensations,  and  on  the  other  hand  the 
various  forms  of  motion  in  the  ether  waves  contain  nothing 
of  feeling.  There  is  a  correspondence,  but  the  two  corre- 
sponding sets  are  intrinsically  different.  We  have  a  com- 
bination and  also  a  cooperation  of  the  lame  man  who  can 
see  and  the  blind  man  who  can  move.  The  former  apper- 
ceives,  the  latter  moves.  In  the  domain  of  psychic  phe- 
nomena, the  mechanistic  principle  is  checked,  for  mechan- 
icalism  can  not  trespass  on  grounds  which  in  themselves 
are  not  motions.  But  for  all  that  we  can  range  the  two 
sets  of  phenomena,  the  subjective  states  and  the  objective 
processes,  in  parallel  columns  side  by  side,  and  if  the  lame 
man  can  not  walk  he  can  direct  the  steps  of  his  blind 
associate. 

We  will  illustrate  the  situation  by  comparing  the  brain 
to  a  book.  The  spirit  of  the  living  brain  consists  in  the 
meaning  which  the  several  feelings  possess,  and  the  spirit 
of  a  book  is  of  the  same  kind.  Meaning  is  an  impalpable 
something;  it  is  neither  material  nor  mechanical,  yet  it  is 
the  main  portion  of  a  living  person  and  of  a  book.  Mean- 
ing is,  as  it  were,  the  stuff  of  which  spirit  consists.  Mean- 
ing is  a  factor  in  life  the  import  of  which  consists  in  its 
tendency  to  signify  and  classify,  to  denote,  to  explain,  to 
impart  direction,  to  guide.  The  vehicle  by  which  meaning 
conveys  itself  and  renders  interaction  between  two  or  more 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  23 

minds  possible  is  the  symbol.  Symbols  stand  for  some- 
thing; they  are  representative;  they  possess  meaning,  and 
the  soul  is  a  system  of  sentient  symbols,  lliere  is  nothing 
mysterious  in  the  representativeness  of  syml^ols  and  yet 
the  whole  domain  of  spirituality  rises  from  meaning;  from 
this  non-material,  non-mechanical,  non-quantitative,  in- 
tangible phenomenon  of  picturing  something  else.  Ana- 
lyze a  book,  you  can  not  discover  its  meaning  in  the  most 
minute  products  of  the  analysis  in  the  chemist's  crucil^le. 
Dissect  the  brain  of  a  man,  you  will  never  find  his  soul  in 
the  dissected  parts.  Measure  all  the  motions  of  the  nerves 
by  the  most  delicate  reaction  apparatus,  you  will  never  lay 
bare  the  feelings  themselves  and  still  less  that  most  subtle 
thino;,  the  sio-nificance  of  feelings.  We  can  measure  everv- 
thing  that  is  objective,  even  the  intensity  of  nerve  reac- 
tions, but  we  can  not  measure  what  is  not  quantitative ;  we 
can  not  measure  the  qualitative  values  of  subjective  states. 

TIME  AND  SPACE. 

If  a  sentient  being  has  developed  into  a  thinking  being 
through  changing  its  sensations  into  representative  feel- 
ings, it  will  in  the  course  of  time  through  the  regularity  of 
sensations  acquire  an  expectancy  of  other  feelings  which 
will  follow  in  a  normal  and  consequential  course,  and  thus 
the  regularity  of  events  due  to  the  uniformity  of  natural 
phenomena  will  produce  an  anticipation  of  the  future. 
Night  always  follows  day,  winter  follows  summer,  and  the 
succession  of  events  is  regular  in  innumerable  other  re- 
spects. Thus  a  living  creature  even  at  an  early  stage  of 
its  evolution  gains  the  power  of  prognostication;  it  will 
form  an  idea  of  future  events,  and  will  naturally  adapt  it- 
self to  their  arrival  in  a  purely  mechanical  way. 

We  must  insist,  however,  that  an  anticipation  of  the 
future  is  a  thought  which  exists  in  the  present.  Tl  is  not 
the  morrow  which  shapes  the  present,  as  says  a  prominent 


J 


24  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

teleologist,^  but  it  is  the  thought  of  to-morrow  which  in- 
fluences our  action  in  the  present.  The  thought  of  to-mor- 
row has  reference  to  the  future,  but  under  no  pretext  can 
we  say  that  it  belongs  to  the  future,  or  that  it  takes  place 
in  the  future,  or  that  it  is  the  future  itself.  It  is  based  upon 
the  past,  and  is  part  of  the  living  present.  The  past  is  not 
dead,  but  is  continued  in  all  its  efficacy  in  the  present.  It 
has  shaped  the  present,  lives  on  in  the  present,  and  the 
anticipation  of  the  future  is  an  outcrop  of  past  experiences. 
In  this  way  future  events  in  a  purely  mechanical  way  cast 
their  shadows  before  them,  and  thus  purpose  can  and  does 
originate  in  a  mechanical  universe. 

The  character  of  time  is  the  succession  of  events,  and  the 
order  of  succession  makes  measurement  possible.  Meas- 
urement is  a  mental  tool,  invented  for  the  sake  of  determin- 
ing duration.  The  duration  which  is  needed  for  the  change 
from  one  event  to  another  is  expressed  in  units  of  time. 
The  actuality  before  us  is  experience,  i.  e.,  events,  trans- 
formations, successive  changes,  and  the  measurable  dura- 
tion of  these  successive  changes  is  presented  in  our  mind 
as  time.  Time,  accordingly,  the  method  of  perceiving  and 
determining  duration,  is  ideal,  while  duration,  the  process 
to  be  measured  by  time,  is  actual. 

The  adjective  "ideal"  means  partaking  of  the  nature 
of  ideas,  implying  that  it  is  not  an  objective  thing,  but  be- 
longs to  the  realm  of  abstract  thought.® 

Time  is  only  one  abstract  notion  derived  from  the  actu- 
ality of  our  experience,  the  other  purely  formal  notion  of 
objectivity  is  space.  Space  is  in  every  respect  analogous  to 
time.  Time  is  ideal,  so  is  space.  As  time  is  eternal,  so 
space  is  infinite.  As  time  is  constituted  by  the  successive 
moments  of  motion  and  implies  the  possibility  of  meas- 

•  Prof.  W.  B.  Smith  in  his  article  published  in  The  Monist  for  January, 

1913.  P-  33- 

•What  is  "ideal"  need  not  be  purely  subjective.  Compare  the  writer's 
book  Rani's  Prolegomena,  pp.  186,  206,  214  et  passim. 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  25 

uring  duration,  so  space  is  the  field  of  motion  and  space 
yields  us  the  opportunity  of  measuring  distances.  Time  is 
as  empty  as  space.  Neither  time  nor  space  are  concrete 
entities.  They  are  not  objects,  not  things,  but  relations, 
space  being  the  juxtaposition  of  things  and  time  the  se- 
quence of  events.  They  are  potentialities  of  action,  and 
being  potentialities  they  possess  no  limits,  hence  we  call 
them  infinite  and  eternal. 

Schopenhauer  looks  upon  time  as  that  something  which 
moment  for  moment  renders  futile  evervthing-  under  our 
hands.  Time  and  the  transitoriness  of  things  frustrate  all 
existence,  and  so  time  constitutes  the  vanity  of  all  things. 
Schopenhauer  says  (Parerga  undParalipomena,  II,  §  143) : 
"What  has  been,  no  longer  is;  it  is  no  more  than  what  has 
never  been.  But  everything  that  is,  in  the  next  moment 
has  already  been.  Therefore  the  most  insignificant  pres- 
ent has  an  advantage  in  its  reality  over  the  most  important 
past,  to  which  it  stands  in  the  relation  of  something  to 
nothing." 

This  view  is  ingenious  and  sounds  like  a  profound  truth 
too  true  and  too  well  known  to  deserve  a  restatement,  and 
yet  Schopenhauer  misunderstands  the  nature  of  time.  He 
looks  upon  time  as  an  infinite  series  of  isolated  moments. 
Some  of  these,  the  past,  are  dead;  they  have  existed  but 
exist  no  longer  and  will  never  exist  again.  Others,  the 
future,  are  not  yet  and  never  will  be.  Only  the  present, 
hovering  between  the  two,  is  actual,  and  this  present  is 
vanishing  under  our  hands.  It  has  just  come,  and  the  next 
moment  it  will  be  no  longer.    Thus  all  is  vanity. 

Schopenhauer  continues :  "We  enter  existence  suddenly 
to  our  own  amazement  after  not  having  existed  during 
countless  millenniums,  and  after  a  short  time  we  have  as 
long  a  time  again  not  to  be.  This  is  not  at  all  right,  says  the 
heart;  and  even  in  the  crude  intellect  a  presentiment  of  the 


26  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

ideality  of  time  must  arise  from  considerations  of  this 
kind." 

Perhaps  the  heart  is  right  in  another  sense  than  Scho- 
penhauer means.  His  idea  of  the  ideahty  of  time  is  meta- 
physical. It  implies  that  the  present  which  is  constantly 
vanishing  is  not  real,  but  that  some  non-temporal  eternity 
beyond  time  and  space  contains  true  existence.  This  is 
Plato's  conception  and  it  is  true  enough  if  it  is  understood 
as  a  poetic  and  allegorical  representation  of  a  great  truth. 
But  Schopenhauer,  in  looking  upon  the  moments  of  time  as 
separate  items,  draws  a  conclusion  which  Plato  would  not 
have  endorsed.  Schopenhauer  declares  that  the  past  is 
gone  as  if  it  had  never  been.  If  that  were  true,  why  does 
the  thoughtful  man  consider  the  future?  Why  does  he  not 
live  exclusively  in  the  present  and  enjoy  the  passing  mo- 
ment? Why  should  we  trouble  our  children  with  school 
and  the  tedious  work  of  their  lessons?  The  truth  is  that 
the  work  done  in  the  past  is  not  gone  as  if  it  never  had 
been,  1nit  remains  with  us,  in  the  shape  of  blessings  or 
curses.  For  the  past  is  not  dead ;  it  lives  on  in  the  present 
and  will  continue  in  the  future  forever  afterwards. 

Like  so  many  others,  Schopenhauer  forgets  that  the 
three  aspects  of  time,  past,  present  and  future,  do  not  con- 
sist of  disconnected  moments,  that  the  three  are  one.  He 
descants  on  the  doctrine  of  the  non-existence  of  the  past 
and  the  illusory  existence  of  the  future,  saying  (§  144) : 
*'Our  existence  has  no  basis  nor  ground  on  which  to  stand 
except  the  vanishing  present.  Thence  it  substantially  has 
the  constant  movement  towards  assuming  form  without  the 
possibility  of  the  rest  for  which  we  continually  strive.  It 
is  like  the  course  of  a  man  running  down  a  mountain  side 
who  would  fall  if  he  tried  to  stop  and  can  keep  his  footing 
only  by  continuing  to  run ;  likewise  it  is  like  a  stick  balanced 
on  the  fingertips ;  it  is  like  the  planet  which  would  fall  into 
the  sun  as  soon  as  it  stopped  hastening  uninterruptedly  on 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  2^ 

its  way.  Hence  unrest  is  the  type  of  existence.  In  such 
a  universe  where  no  stabiHty  of  any  kind  and  no  permanent 
condition  is  possible,  but  where  everything  is  seized  in  a 
restless  whirl  and  change,  where  everything  is  hastening, 
fleeing,  holding  itself  upright  on  the  tightrope  by  con- 
stantly marching  and  moving,  happiness  is  not  in  the  least 
conceivable.  It  can  not  dwell  where  Plato's  'constant  be- 
coming and  never  being'  may  alone  be  found.  First  and 
foremost,  no  one  is  happy,  but  each  strives  his  whole  life 
long  after  a  so-called  happiness  which  he  seldom  attains 
and  then  only  to  be  deceived ;  generally,  however,  each  one 
finally  puts  into  port  shipwrecked  and  unrigged.  But  then 
it  makes  no  difference  whether  he  has  been  happy  or  un- 
happy in  a  life  composed  merely  of  a  transitory  present 
which  is  now  at  an  end." 

^^'hile  it  is  true  enough  that  restlessness  is  the  type  of 
existence,  it  is  not  true  that  it  makes  no  difference  what 
a  man  has  done  or  experienced  in  life,  whether  he  was 
happy  or  unha]:)py,  whether  he  accomplished  something- 
good  or  evil;  for  we  repeat  that  the  past  is  not  absolutely 
dead  and  the  several  moments  of  our  life  are  not  discon- 
nected items  which  are  gone  as  if  they  had  never  been.  For 
the  past  endures  in  the  present  as  a  living  factor,  and  the 
present  continues  in  the  future. 

There  are  not  three  separate  times:  past,  present  and 
future;  there  is  one  time:  it  is  eternity,  for  eternity  lives 
in  the  unfoldment  of  time.  The  past  is  not  eternally  dead, 
the  past  dominates  the  present,  it  has  formed  the  present, 
it  continues  to  live  in  it  and  constitutes  its  character;  the 
future  is  not,  as  has  been  claimed  "never  here" ;  the  future 
is  the  present  in  its  becoming,  it  is  the  living  foetus  in  tl'.e 
womb  of  time;  it  is  its  bud  before  a  full  unfoldment.  Like 
the  past  so  the  future  is  an  essential  part  of  the  present, 
and  in  this  wav  the  lanus-headed  time  constitutes  a  trinit\ 
which  is  an  indivisible  unity  with  three  aspects. 


28  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

Time  is  the  ever  living  present  with  one  face  toward 
the  past,  the  other  toward  the  future.  We  insist  on  the  unity 
of  time,  to  show  that  there  are  not  three  different  kinds  of 
time,  one  eternally  dead,  the  second  eternally  dying,  the 
third  one  forever  and  aye  still-born.  The  past  is  the  factor, 
the  future  the  product,  and  the  two  touch  in  the  present 
when  the  factor  determines  the  product.  The  present  in 
its  connection  with  past  and  future  is  time,  and  time  is 
eternal. 

Among  the  best  contemplations  on  time  and  space  are 
Schiller's  verses: 

TIME. 

"Threefold  is  the  march  of  Time: 
While  the  future  slow  advances, 
Like  a  dart  the  present  glances, 
Changeless  stands  the  past  sublime. 

(Time  as  Future.) 
"No  impatience  e'er  can  speed  him 
On  his  course  if  he  delay. 

(Time  as  Present.) 
"No  alarm,  no  doubts  impede  him 
If  he  keep  his  onward  way. 

(Time  as  Past.) 
"No  remorse,  no  incantations 
Alter  aught  in  his  fixations. 

(Application.) 
"Wouldst  thou  wisely,  and  with  pleasure, 
Pass  the  days  of  life's  short  measure, 
From  the  slow  one  counsel  take, 
But  a  tool  of  him  ne'er  make ; 
Ne'er  as  friend  the  swift  one  know, 
Nor  the  constant  one  as  foe!" 

SPACE. 

"Threefold  is  the  form  of  Space: 
Length,  with  ever  restless  motion; 
Seeks  eternity's  wide  ocean; 
Breadth  with  boundless  sway  extends; 
Depth  to  unknown  realms  descends. 

(Application.) 
"All  three  types  to  thee  are  given : 
Thou  must  onward  strive  for  heaven. 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  29 

Never  still  or  weary  be 
Wouldst  thou  perfect  glory  see; 
Far  must  thy  researches  go 
Wouldst  thou  learn  the  world  to  know ; 
Thou  must  tempt  the  dark  abyss 
Wouldst  thou  life's  deep  meaning  wis. 

"Nought  but  firmness  gains  the  prize, — 
Nought  but  fulness  makes  us  wise, — 
Buried  deep,  truth  ever  lies!" 

(Translation  by  Bowring.) 


CAUSALITY. 

Time  and  space  are  the  ideal  aspects  (or  to  speak  with 
Kant,  they  are  pure  forms)  of  the  real  processes  which  we 
observe  in  experience.  The  order  which  prevails  in  these 
processes  is  called  causation  and  the  law  of  causation  is 
causality.  The  problem  of  the  evidence  for  the  truth  and 
the  reliability  of  causality  was  first  proposed  by  David 
Hume  who  doubted  the  necessary  connection  between  cause 
and  effect. 

Hume  proceeded  from  the  sensationalist  school  of  Eng- 
land and  claimed  that  we  observed  constantly  repeated  con- 
catenations of  cause  and  effect,  but  he  denied  that  a  suc- 
cession of  cause  and  effect,  if  experienced  ever  so  often, 
was  any  proof  that  in  the  future  also  the  same  succession 
would  take  place.  So  he  turned  skeptic,  but  he  deemed  the 
probability  of  the  constancy  of  this  connection  suriicicnt 
to  accept  a  belief  in  causality  as  a  working-  hypothesis. 

It  is  well  known  that  Hume's  skepticism  set  Kant  to 
thinking,  and  he  discovered  that  the  certainty  of  our  no- 
tion of  causality  is  of  the  same  nature  as  the  certainty  of 
mathematics,  which  means  that  it  is  purely  formal.  Ac- 
cordingly he  considered  it  an  a  priori  truth  as  mucli  as  all 
other  purely  formal  theorems — arithmetic,  geometry,  logic 
and  pure  nature-science.  Kant  took  an  inventory  of  our 
a  priori  knowledge  which  he  discovered  to  be  the  condi- 


30  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

tions  of  all  experience  and  denoted  them  as  transcendental/ 
All  the  store  of  our  transcendental  knowledge  constitutes 
the  possessions  of  pure  reason. 

We  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Hume's  concep- 
tion of  causality  is  wrong.  Hume  speaks  of  cause  and 
effect  as  two  ''objects"  that  unvaryingly  follow  one  an- 
other, and  he  was  unable  to  find  any  reason  why  this  should 
be  so.  We  see  in  cause  the  initial  start  and  in  effect  the 
final  state  of  a  certain  event  or  process  of  transformation, 
and  in  this  respect  causality  is  identical  with,  or  another 
aspect  of,  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  matter  and  energy. 
It  is  a  purely  formal  statement,  or  to  use  Kant's  nomen- 
clature, an  a  priori  doctrine,  just  as  much  as  any  arith- 
metical or  geometrical  statement,  or  as  the  logical  prin- 
ciple, A  ^  A. 

The  law  of  causation  means  that  the  sum  total  of  exist- 
ence remains  the  same.  The  sum  total  of  energy  and  sub- 
stance^ of  yesterday  is  the  same  as  it  is  to-day  and  will  be 
to-morrow.  In  other  words,  all  changes  that  take  place 
are  due  to  motions,  and  every  special  case  of  causation 
which  we  investigate  is  contained  within  a  certain  field  of 
observation ;  it  is  a  mere  change  of  form,  a  change  of  posi- 
tion, of  configuration,  of  combination,  of  interrelation. 
There  is  first  the  initiative  motion  which  enters  as  a  dis- 
turbing factor  and  upsets  the  state  of  affairs  in  a  given 

^  Kant's  term  "transcendental"  has  been  the  source  of  much  confusion.  By 
"transcendent"  Kant  understands  what  transcends  our  comprehension,  what 
lies  beyond  it,  in  a  word  "the  unknowable."  Transcendental ,_  however,  is  that 
which  transcends  experience  as  its  condition.  Pure  logic  is  transcendental, 
mathematics  is  transcendental,  space  and  time  are  transcendental.  Logic  is 
the  condition  of  thought,  and  our  notions  of  space  and  tirne  are  a  transcenden- 
tal esthetics — viz.,  the  conditions  of  our  senses,  of  our  viewing  things  as  ob- 
jects in  space  and  time.  In  Kant's  phraseology,  time  and  space  are  the  forms 
of  our  Anschauung.  (See  on  Anschauung  the  writer's  Kant  and  Spencer,  pp. 
75-80).  Things-in-themselves  are  according  to  Kant  transcendent,  but  the 
purely  formal  sciences  are  transcendental.  A  belief  in  the  transcendent  is  mys- 
ticism; but  the  realm  of  the  transcendental  is  the  arsenal  of  science;  the 
transcendental  furnishes  us  the  methods  of  clear  thought. 

*We  say  "substance,"  not  "matter,"  on  purpose,  for  it  is  quite  probable 
that  matter  is  a  form  of  ether,  having  originated  as  mass  through  the  ether's 
resistance  to  energy. 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  3 1 

system,  viz.,  in  our  field  of  observation.  We  call  it  cause, 
and  we  trace  the  successive  transpositions  of  parts,  of  the 
several  portions  of  the  system,  until  a  relative  rest  is  re- 
gained; and  this  new  state  of  affairs,  the  final  outcome 
of  this  transformation,  is  called  its  effect  or  the  result. 

Causation  accordingly  is  a  law  of  motion  and  every 
process  of  causation  is  necessarily  mechanical.  If  all  de- 
tails were  known,  we  could  see  in  every  single  case  how 
one  change  of  place  upsets  the  equilibrium  of  a  state  of 
things  and  leads  to  other  changes  of  place.  A  cause  which 
is  not  mechanical  does  not  exist. 

The  reason  why  a  cause  may  or  nmst  be  ef^cient  need 
not  be  mechanical,  it  is  always  a  matter  of  form,  viz.,  of 
arrangement,  of  configuration,  of  disposition,  of  structure. 
The  cause  itself  produces  its  effect  according  to  the  laws 
of  motion,  but  different  arrangements,  like  different  posi- 
tions of  a  railway  switch,  impart  to  a  motion  different 
directions,  and  since  different  configurations  in  the  domain 
of  cerebral  activity  are  ensouled  with  different  meanings, 
the  non-mechanical  enters  as  an  important  factor  in  the 
world  of  mechanical  events. 

We  have  explained  again  and  again  the  processes  of 
causality  as  a  transformation,  yet  the  old  traditional  errors 
die  hard  and  are  still  adhered  to  even  by  our  friends  who 
ought  to  be  familiar  with  our  work.  Prof.  William  Ben- 
jamin Smith  of  Tulane  University  still  continues  to  speak 
with  Hume  of  cause  and  effect  as  ''following  each  other" ; 
yea  he  out-Humes  Hume  by  declaring^  that  "they  do  not 
touch  hands."  If  he  had  understood  our  view  of  causation 
he  would  know  that  they  do  touch  hands,  for  they  are  not 
two  things  following  each  other,  but  the  two  together  con- 
stitute one  indivisible  process  and  are  two  features  of  it, 

•See  Professor  Smith's  article  "Push?  or  Pull?"  in  The  Monist  for  Jan- 
uary, 1913,  p.  22. 


2,2  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

the  cause  being  the  initiative  motion,  the  effect  the  final 
state  of  one  and  the  same  process  of  transformation. 

Hume  speaks  of  cause  and  effect  as  two  ''objects  fol- 
lowing each  other"  and  he  finds  that  they  have  nothing  to 
do  with  each  other.  He  speaks  of  "strychnine"  as  "a  cause" 
and  "the  dead  mouse"  as  the  result,  and  then  he  wonders 
what  these  two  heterogeneous  objects — strychnine  and  a 
dead  mouse — have  to  do  with  each  other.  Naturally  he  is 
puzzled  and  grows  skeptical.  Had  Hume  contemplated 
the  whole  event  as  one  process  of  which  the  cause  would 
not  be  strychnine,  but  the  eating  of  the  strychnine,  he 
would  have  seen  how  this  initiative  incident  of  transport- 
ing the  strychnine  into  the  stomach,  affects  the  intestines 
and  must  result  in  the  death  of  the  mouse.  If  he  had  thus 
treated  his  problem  he  could  not  have  doubted  the  connec- 
tion between  cause  and  effect.  But  he  singles  out  two 
objects  which  are  connected,  the  one  with  the  cause,  the 
other  with  the  effect,  and  is  puzzled. 

What  grievous  mistakes  such  an  unusually  keen  thinker 
can  make!  He  shows  his  acumen  by  finding  the  problem 
and  stating  it,  but  in  the  attempt  at  solving  it  he  fails  most 
lamentably.  Kant  caught  the  right  scent,  he  recognized 
the  character  of  causality  and  classified  it  correctly  with 
other  purely  formal  notions.  He  diagnosed  the  case,  but 
he  failed  to  explain  Hume's  trouble.  He  proved  that  sen- 
sationalism was  untenable,  but  did  not  cure  the  disease  of 
skepticism,  and  he  tinged  philosophy  with  idealism  by 
tracing  the  idea  of  causation  back  to  the  constitution  of 
the  human  mind  without  investigating  the  origin  and  de- 
velopment of  mind. 

We  see  in  causality  a  law  of  transformation,  and  we 
understand  thereby  not  only  the  reliability  but  also  the  in- 
telligibility of  a  necessary  connection  between  cause  and 
effect.  We  understand  it  to  be  based  on  the  law  of  iden- 
tity, and  thus  Kant  is  right  to  regard  it  as  a  priori.    Noth- 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  33 

ing  has  newly  originated,  neither  substance  nor  energy; 
nothing  has  been  lost.  All  we  observe  is  a  change  of  form, 
and  it  is  the  business  of  the  scientist  to  trace  the  several 
stages  of  the  process  and  to  understand  how  one  change 
of  form  gives  rise  to  other  changes. 

We  insist  that  causality  being  the  law  of  transforma- 
tion must  be  mechanical ;  it  traces  changes  of  place  which 
follow  successively  step  by  step.  Every  prior  change  of 
place  is  the  cause  of  the  following  one  in  a  continuous  con- 
catenation ;  and  the  explanation  is  complete  if  we  know  in 
every  detail  how  matter  moves  in  space. 

A  general  description  of  the  essential  features  which 
make  a  cause  efifective  is  called  the  "reason,"  and  the  rea- 
son w^hich  is  an  answer  to  the  question  why  certain  results 
are  produced  is  commonly  called  a  law  of  nature.  Reasons 
may  refer  to  conditions  which  are  not  mechanical,  but,  for 
all  that,  causes  remain  motions,  and  while  reasons  may  be 
logical,  or  geometrical  or  draw  upon  other  non-mechanical 
domains  to  explain  the  efficiency  of  causes,  the  latter  will 
remain  mechanical. 

A  cause  is  always  an  event.  It  is  a  motion,  a  definite 
occurrence  that  takes  place  in  a  definite  spot  of  space  and 
at  a  definite  moment  of  time;  and  it  is  a  grave  mistake  to 
say  with  Hume  that  the  cause  is  an  object.  Strychnine  is 
not  a  cause.  The  eating  of  strychnine  is  a  cause  while  its 
destructiveness  of  living  tissue  in  any  stomach  is  the  rea- 
son of  the  efifectiveness  of  the  cause.  The  bullet  is  not  the 
cause  of  a  man's  death,  as  Hume  has  it,  but  the  vehement 
entrance  of  the  bullet  into  his  body  is  the  cause  of  a  lacera- 
tion of  his  vital  organs  which  results  in  death. 

The  whole  process  of  causation  is  always  mechanical 
and  takes  place  according  to  mechanistic  principle,  because 
every  transformation  means  change  of  place  (motion)  and 
a  rearrangement  of  parts.  This  general  law  holds  good  for 
the  simplest  purely  physical  process  as  well  as  for  the  trans- 


34  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

formations  in  the  brain  of  a  thinking  man.  There  is  no 
other  way  of  thinking-  out  clearly  the  meaning  of  causation. 

Kirchhoff  established  a  new  conception  of  mechanics 
in  his  famous  dictum  that  mechanics  describes  motions  in 
the  simplest  and  most  exhaustive  way,  and  it  is  noteworthy 
that  he  omitted  in  his  definition  the  traditional  term 
''cause."  He  no  longer  says  that  mechanics  searches  for 
the  cause  of  the  motions,  but  he  simply  says  it  ''describes 
the  motions."  This  strange  procedure  of  Kirchhofif  is  ob- 
viously due  to  the  metaphysical  and  erroneous  conception 
which  obtained  in  his  days  of  the  term  "cause." 

There  has  been  much  talk  about  different  kinds  of 
causes,  as  efficient  causes,  final  causes,  ultimate  causes  and 
a  first  cause,  the  latter  having  been  identified  with  God  as 
the  cause  of  himself  (causa  sui) ;  but  this  conception  of  the 
word  "cause"  rests  simply  on  a  confusion  of  "cause"  with 
"reason."  While  causes  are  the  incipient  motions  in  a  pro- 
cess of  transformation,  reasons  are  the  general  formulas 
which  describe  how  certain  causes  take  effect.  Reasons 
may  be  more  or  less  general,  and  we  may  consider  a  uni- 
versal statement  as  the  ultimate  reason  of  a  certain  set  of 
happenings.  Causes  are  always  concrete  and  definite ;  rea- 
sons are  always  abstract  and  general;  causes  are  always 
mechanical  in  their  actions,  reasons  are  always  argumenta- 
tive or  logical  or  explanatory. 

The  confusion  between  cause  and  reason  has  given  rise 
to  many  errors  in  the  domain  of  philosophy,  and  some- 
times also  in  the  heads  of  scientists.  One  of  the  worst 
errors  is  the  belief  in  mysterious  metaphysical  causes  which 
are  assumed  to  live  behind  natural  phenomena  and  account 
for  them  like  the  laws  of  nature  with  the  notion  lurking  in 
the  word  "causes"  that  they,  these  metaphysical  causes, 
are  mysterious  entities  which  have  an  existence  outside  and 
beyond  the  actual  world  in  mystic  domains  as  a  transcen- 
dent extra-  or  super-natural  essence.    Kirchhoff  misunder- 


AND   THE   NON-MECHANTCAL.  35 

Stood  the  term  "cause"  in  this  sense  and  so  he  denied  the 
existence  of  causes. 

If  we  properly  understand  the  law  of  causality  to  be  a 
law  of  transformation  ultimately  based  on  the  theory  that 
no  change  is  due  to  the  sudden  appearance  or  disappear- 
ance of  anything  real,  be  it  matter  or  energy,  but  that  rill 
processes  are  mere  changes  or  transpositions  of  parts,  and 
that  new  creations  arise  by.  a  combination  of  particles  in 
new  forms,  we  shall  see  that  the  law  of  causation  is  a  mere 
corollary  to  the  mechanistic  principle,  and  thus  causality 
is  in  Kant's  terminology  an  a  priori  truth  corresponding  to 
the  logical  law  of  identity.  It  means  that  nothing  comes 
from  nothing,  and  no  reality,  neither  matter  nor  energy, 
can  disappear  into  nothing.  All  that  happens  is  trans- 
formation and  is  due  to  change  of  place. 

It  is  obvious  on  the  basis  of  this  consideration  that 
every  portion  of  the  causal  nexus  of  events  must  be  me- 
chanical, which  means  that  the  mechanistic  principle  ap- 
plies without  any  exception  to  all  causes,  and  nothing  is 
actual  unless  it  is  matter  moving  in  space. 

If  this  is  generally  true  we  must  assume  for  instance 
that  chemical  processes  must  be  regarded  as  due  to  molec- 
ular mechanics.  On  the  other  liand  we  know  that  reasons 
are  general  formulas;  that  they  are  ideas,  not  changes  of 
place;  that  they  are  notions,  not  motions;  and  we  must 
grant  that  the  logical  factors  of  our  thought  are  neither 
matter  nor  energy  and,  as  thoughts,  have  nothing  to  do 
with  motions;  nor  can  their  explanations  be  derived  from 
the  mechanistic  principle.  How  could  we  prove  from  mech- 
anics the  mortality  of  Caesar  which  logic  derives  from  the 
two  premises,  first  from  the  universal  law  that  all  men  are 
mortal,  and  secondly  from  the  particular  statement  that 
Caisar  is  a  man?  We  prove  logical  statements  by  logical 
syllogisms. 


36 


THE  MECIIANISTTC  PRINCIPLE 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  FORM. 

How  then  does  the  non-mechanical  of  the  subjective 
domain  of  existence,  our  thoughts  and  ideas,  enter  into 
the  mechanical  world  of  objective  reality,  and  how  does  the 
subjective  aspect  of  organized  beings  influence  the  causal 
nexus  of  life?  The  fact  is  obvious  that  this  is  done,  for 
our  very  existence  as  purposive  rational  creatures  proves 
it,  and  the  influence  of  the  subject  on  the  object  is  exerted 
in  the  same  way  as  the  subjective  factors  rise  from  merely 
potential  existence  into  actual  being. 

Mentality  originates  by  the  representativeness  of  feel- 
ings. Symbols  are  the  conveyers  of  meaning,  and  meaning 
is  the  quintessence  of  spirit.  Where  there  are  symbols 
there  is  spirit,  and  symbols  possess  definite  forms;  forms 
however  are  common  to  both  spheres  of  existence,  the  sub- 
jective and  the  objective  realms,  for  definite  kinds  of  feel- 
ing correspond  to  definite  forms  of  activity  or  of  bodily 
appearance.  In  order  to  communicate  a  meaning  we  can 
do  it  only  by  a  communication  of  symbols,  by  acoustic  sym- 
bols or  words,  by  written  characters  or  letters,  by  dots  and 
dashes  in  telegrams.  But  without  symbols  there  is  neither 
spirit  nor  the  communication  of  meaning.  The  printing  of 
a  book  or  the  writing  of  a  letter  will  illustrate  the  impor- 
tant truth  of  the  spirituality  of  the  symbol  and  the  non- 
materiality  of  spirit.  The  meaning  conveyed  in  words, 
spoken  or  written,  must  find  expression  in  objective  sym- 
bols of  a  definite  form,  in  air  waves  or  in  inky  figures,  but 
the  meaning  is  neither  the  energy  of  the  air  waves,  nor  the 
ink  of  the  written  character.  The  meaning  is  qualitative, 
not  quantitative ;  it  depends  upon  the  form  of  the  characters 
used,  not  on  the  amount  of  energy  or  matter  needed  to 
produce  the  symbol,  and  form  plays  an  important  part  in 
mechanics. 

Difference  of  form  means  a  difference  in  the  factors 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  37 

that  guide  a  discharge  of  energy;  the  relationship  of  things 
imparts  direction.  The  energy  of  steam  in  a  boiler  makes 
the  engine  go,  but  the  position  of  the  switch  determines  its 
direction.  Our  thoughts  are  sentient  symbols  which  reside 
in  definite  forms  of  our  brain  structures,  and  these  brain 
structures  are  efficient  and  transfer  their  activity  according 
to  their  forms  and  the  established  associations  in  the  nerv- 
ous system.  They  determine  our  actions  just  as  the  cogs 
and  levers  of  a  machine  will  work  in  one  or  another  way 
according  to  their  construction,  i.  e.,  according  to  the  form 
in  which  they  are  made  and  the  relative  positions  in  which 
they  have  been  set. 

Apparently  form  is  the  essential  thing  everywhere. 
Matter  and  energy  are  merely  the  material  of  which  the 
cosmos  is  built,  but  the  cosmos  itself,  its  orderly  reali- 
zation, is  in  its  form;  the  forms  of  existence  make  it  what 
it  is.  Matter  only  renders  things  real,  energy  makes  them 
actual,  but  form  constitutes  the  essential  feature  of  exist- 
ence and  contains  its  character.  The  possibilities  of  forma- 
tion are  inexhaustible;  they  are  infinite,  and  for  them  there 
is  no  limit  of  perfection.  All  things  are  forms  produced 
from  the  same  aboriginal  material ;  we  ourselves  are  forms, 
and  the  form  of  our  subjective  nature,  of  our  souls,  pos- 
sesses meaning.  This  meaning  of  our  soul-forms  is  thought, 
it  is  mind,  it  is  spirit. 

At  the  start  of  the  world-process  the  purely  physical 
qualities  of  existence  alone  manifest  themselves,  but  in  the 
course  of  evolution  life,  sentiency,  and  thought  develop, 
and  ev^ery  step  forward  is  taken  according  to  mechanical 
law.  Such  steps  are :  the  origin  of  organized  life  as  metab- 
olism ;  the  process  of  the  preservation  of  form  in  the  flux 
of  organized  life  which  is  the  base  of  memory;  the  origin 
of  feeling  by  an  organization  of  subjective  states  which  is 
accom])lished  by  the  growth  of  a  nervous  system  so  as  to 
enable  an  isolated  feeling  to  come  in  contact  with  other 


38  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

feelings,  whereby  feelings  become  conscious ;  the  origin  of 
mind  which  takes  place  when  feelings  acquire  meaning; 
the  classification  of  sense-impressions  according  to  their 
physiological  forms  whereby  automatically  a  logical  sys- 
tem of  genera  and  species  is  built  up ;  also  the  development 
of  language  as  the  vehicle  of  abstract  thought.  Every  one 
of  these  several  phases  in  the  development  of  the  human 
mind  is  strictly  mechanical;  every  one  of  them  has  orig- 
inated in  a  mechanical  way  and  finds  an  explanation  of 
its  mode  of  functioning  in  the  basis  of  the  mechanical  prin- 
ciple/'^ 

THE  SELF-REALIZATION  OF  POTENTIALITIES. 

There  have  been  thinkers  who  on  the  ground  of  the 
mechanistic  principle  assume  that  the  world  must  have 
some  originator,  a  first  mover,  who  is  responsible  for  all 
the  motions  that  take  place,  and  especially  for  all  that  is 
good  and  noble  in  the  world.  His  mental  forethought  must 
have  determined  the  procreation  of  the  world  in  all  its 
details  and  especially  in  its  final  outcome  or  in  the  climax 
of  its  evolution,  and  the  argument  of  this  view  is  com- 
monly and  popularly  formulated  in  the  saying  that  the 
stream  can  not  rise  higher  than  its  source. 

This  popular  statement  would  make  it  quite  plausible 
that  in  the  evolution  of  life,  the  highest  must  be  at  the 
beginning,  and  the  height  of  the  beginning  can  never  be 
reached  during  the  process  of  life's  history.  But  this  need 
not  be  so;  in  fact  it  is  not  so.  While  nothing  n-ew  can  be 
created  so  far  as  substance  and  energy  are  concerned,  there 
is  decidedly  a  creation  of  new  forms.  The  combinations 
that  are  possible  contain  not  merely  additions  of  parts,  by 
external  associations,  but  we  meet  also  with  fusions  re- 
sulting in  absolutely  new  things,  possessed  of  new  quali- 

"  Compare  for  a  brief  synopsis  of  these  problems  the  author's  pamphlet 
The  Philosophy  of  Form. 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  39 

ties,  and  this  is  an  important  truth  which  is  frequently 
overlooked. 

While  the  stream  can  never  rise  higher  than  its  source 
it  increases  in  size  and  in  the  capacity  of  being  useful,  and 
the  lower  it  goes,  the  larger  it  grows.  The  source  could 
not  carry  the  pageantries  of  the  world  which  the  river  ac- 
commodates in  the  harbor  where  its  waters  empty  into  the 
ocean. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  primitive  substance,  the  aborig- 
inal world-stuff,  must  contain  the  seeds  of  all  the  possible 
creatures  or  things  which  come  about  by  combination.  A 
steam  engine  does  not  lie  hidden  in  the  iron  of  which  it  is 
constructed,  nor  is  an  organism  contained  in  the  molecules 
which  constitute  its  parts.  New  combinations  will  produce 
new  qualities  which  are  absolutely  absent  in  their  com- 
ponent parts. 

This  is  true  not  only  in  physics  but  also  and  primarily 
in  the  realm  of  pure  thought.  Kant  investigated  the  prob- 
lem of  a  priori  synthesis.  He  asked  whether  or  not  a  priori 
synthetic  judgments  are  possible  and  he  showed  that  the 
simplest  arithmetical  addition  is  of  a  synthetic  nature,  as 
for  instance  the  statement  54-8=13.  The  nature  of  the 
number  13  is  not  contained  either  in  5  or  8  but  is  something 
new,  and  the  same  is  true  of  all  the  results  in  the  domain  of 
any  of  the  purely  formal  sciences. 

We  do  not  evaluate  mathematics  from  a  mysterious 
geometry  in  and  by  itself,  but  we  construct  mathematics 
with  the  help  of  the  elementary  mathematical  notions. 
When  we  make  two  lines  cross  each  other  in  a  plane,  we 
produce  an  angle;  and  an  angle  is  radically  different  from 
a  line,  being  the  inclination  between  the  dierctions  of  two 
straight  lines  which  is  not  contained  in,  and  can  not  be 
explained  from,  the  definition  of  the  nature  of  straight 
lines.  The  same  is  true  of  triangles.  The  nature  of  a 
triangle  has  no  more  been   deduced   from   straight   lines 


40  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

than  has  any  other  figure  of  geometry.  We  build  up  ab- 
sohitely  new  and  more  and  more  comphcated  notions  by 
making  new  combinations. 

The  same  is  true  in  objective  reaHty,  as  for  instance  in 
chemistry.  The  chemist  distinguishes  carefully  between 
chemical  combinations  and  chemical  mixtures.  In  a  chem- 
ical combination  different  kinds  of  atoms  are  so  fused  to- 
gether as  to  produce  a  new  unity  with  new  qualities.  And 
with  every  advance  of  evolution  new  phenomena  are  cre- 
ated. 

Some  of  the  life  processes  can  definitely  be  proved  to 
be  the  same  as  other  mechanical  or  purely  physical  or  chem- 
ical processes,  but  we  can  not  for  that  reason  concede  that 
life  is  throughout  merely  chemical  or  explicable  by  molar 
mechanics  alone.  Bio-chemistry  has  made  great  strides, 
but  it  will  never  be  able  to  break  down  the  barrier  between 
chemistry  and  biology.  There  are  certain  features  in  the 
biological  processes  which  are  typically  biological  and  can 
not  be  discovered  in  the  realm  of  inorganic  chemistry. 
Such  processes  are,  for  instance,  the  circuit  of  life  known 
as  metabolism,  and  in  this  constant  flux  the  preservation 
of  life-forms  which  furnishes  the  condition  of  memory, 
and  assures  the  possibility  of  self-preservation  (which  is  a 
preservation  of  form  in  the  flux  of  metabolism)  against  the 
leveling  influence  of  the  surroundings. 

There  are  everywhere  phases  of  transition,  but  some- 
times a  slight  modification  creates  the  rise  of  a  new  kind 
of  phenomena  which  as  soon  as  perfected  after  a  long 
preparation  will  show  a  great  contrast  to  all  other  occur- 
rences. Such  a  contrast  originates  in  the  appearance  of 
animal  life. 

The  gap  between  life  and  inanimate  nature  is  even 
more  marked  than  the  gap  between  molar  mechanics  and 
chemistry,  for  in  animal  life  we  reach  a  new  stage  which 
displays  the  wonderful  phenomena  of  sentiency.     All  the 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  4I 

processes  in  the  domain  of  life  are  and  must  remain  ulti- 
mately mechanical,  but  their  mechanical  nature  is  so  com- 
plicated, much  more  complicated  than  the  molecular  mech- 
anics of  chemistry,  and  presupposes  such  new  combina- 
tions that  the  life  processes  possess  a  character  of  their 
own.  Under  these  circumstances  we  are  justified  in  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  various  classes  of  phenomena  and 
assigning  to  the  different  sciences  domains  of  their  own. 
There  are  other  features  present  in  vital  phenomena  which 
are  absolutely  absent  in  purely  physical  events,  and  among 
these  features  there  is  in  animal  life  the  appearance  of 
consciousness  and  with  it  the  rise  of  the  will  which  means 
purposive  motions.  This  feature  increases  with  the  prog- 
ress of  evolution  and  becomes  so  obvious  that  it  may  be 
considered  as  the  characteristic  quality  of  soul-life.  A 
denial  of  it  will  prove  vain,  for  the  fact  remains;  and 
since  the  pursuit  of  purpose  is  so  prominent  in  animal 
life,  we  may  describe  man,  who  has  climbed  to  the  top  of 
self-consciousness,  as  the  climax  of  purpose-pursuing  ani- 
malhood. 

The  potentialities  of  existence,  all  the  possible  combina- 
tions of  things  or  creatures  which  may  or  will  originate  in 
the  course  of  evolution,  exist  in  a  latent  state  in  the  do- 
main of  pure  form.  They  are  mere  applications  of  the 
eternal  laws,  so  called,  of  the  factors  which  direct  evolu- 
tion and  constitute  the  world  order,  the  divine  dispensation 
which  shapes  the  telos  of  the  world,  its  aim  and  end.  They 
are  what  Goethe"  in  reference  to  a  passage  in  Plutarch^- 
calls  the  mothers  whose  habitat  is  in  the  field  of  truth,  a 
place  not  to  be  found  in  space,  who  move  in  a  time  which 
is  above  the  distinction  of  past  present  and  future,  and 
breathe  the  air  of  eternity.  These  mothers  are  like  the 
Platonic  ideas  and  the  matrices  of  Paracelsus. 

"  In  Faust,  Part  II,  Act  I,  Scene  5. 
^  De  defectione  oraculorum,  22, 


42  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

The  potentialities  of  existence  unfold  themselves  ac- 
cording to  the  eternal  laws  of  the  cosmic  order  from  the 
latency  of  non-existence  into  the  actual  life  of  self-reali- 
zation. 

The  development  of  the  world,  with  all  the  life  it  brings 
forth  and  the  moral  aspirations  of  rational  beings,  rising 
from  the  mere  potentiality  of  existence  into  the  nobility  of 
a  purposive  thoughtful  man,  may  be  called  the  self-realiza- 
tion of  God,  of  that  eternal  norm  which  dominates  all  that 
is,  that  ever  has  been  and  ever  will  be,  of  that  which  in  its 
potentialities  is  infinite  and  inexhaustible.  This  norm  is 
not  material;  it  is  purely  formal.  Nor  is  it  an  enormous 
amount  of  energy.  Neither  is  it  subjective  or  sentient;  it 
is  not  a  mysterious  ego-consciousness;  it  is  the  formative 
principle  of  anything  that  might  arise  into  existence ;  it  is 
the  potentiality  of  being,  its  law  and  the  guidance  of  its 
formation.  This  norm  is  the  eternal  in  the  transient,  it  is 
the  divinity  of  creation  and  the  supernatural  of  nature.  It 
is  the  factor  that  determines  all  things  and  it  is  He  in  whom 
we  all  live  and  move  and  have  our  being. 

THE  DIGNITY  OF  MAN. 

There  is  no  reason  to  decry  the  nature  of  man's  mind 
as  something  low  by  pointing  out  that  like  a  machine  it 
works  in  a  purely  mechanical  way.  It  is  true  that  in  this 
sense  man  is  a  machine,  of  course  a  living  machine,  but  it 
is  not  true  that  his  dignity  is  any  way  impaired  by  this 
truth,  and  this  is  an  important  point  which  ought  to  be  dis- 
cussed. 

Man's  dignity  is  not  a  question  of  fact  nor  of  theory 
but  merely  of  attitude,  and  yet  it  is  for  many  reasons  of 
great  significance.  This  point,  the  dignity  of  man,  im- 
plying also  his  responsibility  for  the  actions  he  performs,  is 
commonly  treated  as  a  side  issue  of  the  problem  of  the 
freedom  of  the  will. 


AND   THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  43 

As  \\e  understand  the  situation  we  see  nothing  amiss 
in  the  truth  that  all  happenings  in  the  world,  including  the 
actions  of  man.  take  place  according  to  the  law  of  causa- 
tion which  is  and  must  ultimately  be  mechanical.  The  in- 
trinsic necessity  with  which  all  events  take  place  does  not 
mean  a  tyranny  of  some  mysterious  power  called  natural 
law.  Necessity  does  not  mean  compulsion,  and  natural 
laws  are  not  police  regulations  nor  the  tikases  of  a  Czar; 
they  are  formulas  summing  up  the  essential  features  of 
processes;  they  are  descriptions  of  what  things  or  crea- 
tures will  do  according  to  their  natures.  The  law  of  gravi- 
tation is  not  a  force  which  drives  the  falling  stone  toward 
the  center  of  the  earth;  it  is  a  generalized  statement  of 
what  masses  will  do  and  how  they  behave  under  given 
circumstances.  And  in  the  same  way  there  are  laws  of  a 
dynamics  of  the  human  will,  according  to  which  we  can 
foresee  and  foretell  how  people  of  a  certain  character  will 
act.  An  honest  and  noble  man  will  in  his  pride  and  self- 
esteem  prefer  to  drink  the  cup  of  hemlock  rather  than  to 
slink  out  of  the  prison  or  cringe  before  his  infamous 
judges  with  cries  for  mercy;  and  a  villain  will  not  shrink 
from  theft  or  corruption  or  crime,  but  will  be  bold  in  ac- 
tion ;  he  will  not  hesitate  to  be  unscrupulous  in  his  self- 
assertion. 

Freedom  of  the  will  has  often  been  doubted,  but  if  there 
is  no  free  will  there  is  no  will  whatever.  Every  will  is  free, 
if  it  be  will  at  all.  Will  ceases  to  be  will  if  it  is  suppressed. 
Will  that  is  not  free  can  not  act  in  accordance  with  the 
character  of  the  willing  person.  Free  will  is  synonymous 
with  will. 

Freedom  of  will  means  that  people  act,  not  arbitrarily, 
but  according  to  their  own  nattire  without  compulsion.  If 
we  know  the  nature  of  a  person  we  can  predict  what  he 
will  inevitablv  and  necessarilv  do  under  "iven  circum- 
Stances,  and  prediction  does  not  imply  a  suppression  of 


44  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

liberty.  On  the  other  hand  the  necessity  with  which  free 
people  act  according  to  their  nature  does  not  mean  that 
their  will  is  unfree  or  that  they  are  slaves — slaves  of  their 
own  nature,  subjects  of  their  own  will. 

In  Mark  Twain's  exposition/^  the  weakness  of  this  the- 
ory that  the  will  is  not  free  comes  out  very  plainly.  Mark 
Twain  claims  that  every  man  has  in  him  a  stern  judge 
whose  approval  must  be  won,  a  tyrant  and  master  who 
must  be  obeyed.  We  are  our  master's  slaves.  But  who  is 
this  inexorable  tyrant?  It  is  our  ego,  it  is  the  exponent 
of  our  personality;  it  is  that  which  says  in  us  /,  it  is  the 
brain  structure  which  pronounces  a  decision  of  our  will, 
the  final  result  of  a  deliberation  of  our  wishes  and  fears 
and  considerations.    In  a  word  this  tyrant  is  we  ourselves. 

It  is  true  enough  that  we  can  not  help  being  what  we 
are.  A  diamond  is  a  diamond  while  grains  of  sand  are 
common  things,  and  they  are  what  they  are  because  the 
history  of  their  origin  and  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  were  formed  made  them  so.  A  man  is  noble  or  vulgar 
because  he  has  developed  in  this  or  that  way.  Nothing  is 
what  it  is  on  its  own  account,  or  can  claim  any  merit  of 
its  own.  Nevertheless  we  esteem  a  diamond  more  highly 
than  quartz  crystals  and  we  appreciate  good  qualities  of 
human  character.  Our  appreciation,  however,  should  not 
exclude  the  recognition  of  the  divine  beauty  that  lives  in 
the  most  common  things  in  the  snow  crystals  no  less  than 
in  diamonds. 

In  all  of  us  the  cosmos  lives.  Everything  has  shaped 
itself  in  the  mighty  forge  of  existence,  but  there  are  dif- 
ferent forms  and  they  are  by  no  means  of  equal  value. 
Our  past  dwells  in  us  as  a  living  presence;  it  has  made 
us  what  we  are  to-day,  and  quickens  us  in  our  actions. 
We  are  what  we  are  because  this  is  what  under  former 

"  See  the  chapter  on  "Mark  Twain's  Philosophy". 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  45 

conditions  we  wanted  to  be.    Our  past  actions,  our  former 
doings,  have  shaped  our  character  as  it  is  now. 

Man  possesses  a  dignity  pecuHar  to  himself.  It  consists 
in  having  reached  a  comprehension  of  himself.  He  has 
learned  to  judge  his  own  will,  he  can  approve  his  volitions, 
he  can  condemn  them  and  he  can  form  ideals.  He  can 
form  a  conception  of  what  he  wishes  to  be  and  this  concep- 
tion of  his  ideal  self  becomes  a  factor  in  his  life.  He  can 
grow  beyond  his  present  self,  he  can  improve.  Riickert, 
one  of  the  most  thoughtful  German  poets,  says 


,14 


"The  type  he  ought  to  be 
Each  one  bears  in  his  mind. 
Until  that  be  attained 
He  never  peace  will  find." — Tr.  by  P.  C. 

Man  establishes  principles  of  action,  to  will  or  not  to 
will  this  or  that.  According  to  conditions  he  either  follows 
his  principles  or  is  remiss  in  his  obedience  to  them,  but  in 
every  case  his  own  will  plays  a  significant  part  in  the  de- 
velopment of  his  character,  and  it  is  therefore  quite  justi- 
fiable to  hold  him  responsible  for  his  actions.  The  feeling 
of  responsibility  and  our  neighbor's  opinion  of  our  respon- 
sibility are  factors  in  our  lives  which  strengthen  our  good 
intentions,  while  the  idea  of  irresponsibility  acts  like  a  bane 
that  paralyzes  the  will. 

A  man  is  not  responsible  for  his  actions  only  if  he  acts 
under  compulsion  against  his  own  will,  if  he  is  intimidated 
by  some  external  power,  either  by  direct  violence  or  a 
threat — in  brief,  if  he  is  not  free.  In  such  a  case  his  actions 
are  not  a  genuine  expression  of  his  character. 

We  must  remember  that  there  is  a  difiference  between 
necessity  or  determinedness  on  the  one  hand  and  compul- 
sion on  the  other.  Everything  is  determined,  even  the  de- 
cision of  a  free  will.  The  will  of  a  free  man  is  determined 
by  the  man's  character.     There  is  no  sense  in  defining  a 

"  See  the  author's  little  book  Personality,  p.  7. 


46  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

free  will  as  undetermined  or  undeterminable  or  arbitrary. 
An  arbitrary  will  would  be  the  outcome  of  chance  and  as 
such  it  could  have  no  moral  value,  no  dignity,  and  would 
not  convey  any  responsibility. 

MAN'S  DIVINITY. 

Having  come  to  the  conclusion  that  man  is  a  machine, 
Mark  Twain  was  overcome  by  a  great  desolation  because 
he  saw  the  dignity  of  man  dwindle  away  under  the  thought 
that  man  possesses  no  merit  whatsoever.  But  what  ground 
is  there  for  dejection  if  man's  actions  really  take  place  in 
accord  with  the  mechanistic  principle?  Is  man  the  worse 
that  he  is  no  exception  to  the  common  natural  law,  that 
his  activity,  like  any  other  event  in  human  nature,  is  sub- 
ject to  the  law  of  causation?  Even  though  the  means  by 
which  nature,  with  the  help  of  mechanical  laws,  attains  her 
end  to  produce  a  rational  creature  be  very  simple,  the  fact 
of  man's  high  standing  in  nature  remains  the  same. 

Here  is  the  point  which  is  of  great  importance,  and 
which  we  wish  to  bring  out.  Man's  divinity  is  not  less 
divine  because  he  has  developed  in  perfect  accord  with  the 
laws  of  nature;  on  the  contrary,  this  very  feature  consti- 
tutes his  divinity. 

We  understand  by  God  "the  authority  of  conduct"  and 
the  ultimate  standard  of  goodness  in  the  constitution  of  the 
universe.  He  who  lives  in  agreement  with  the  cosmic  order 
is  moral,  he  who  infringes  on  it  becomes  alienated  from  the 
divinity  of  existence,  and  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the 
laws  of  nature  are  ultimately  mechanical.  The  laws  of 
chemistry,  of  molecular  mechanics  and  all  other  laws  that 
regulate  the  order  of  events  are  simply  applications  in  spe- 
cially complicated  fields.  The  simplest  laws  are  not  super- 
seded in  the  more  complicated  conditions  but  expanded  and 
specialized.  The  laws  of  social  interrelations,  of  historic 
movements,  of  progress  and  evolution  are  not  excepted, 


AND  THE  NON-MECHANICAL.  47 

and  we  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  niuUipHcation  table 
has  more  to  do  with  justice  and  righteousness  than  a  beUef 
in  special  revelations  or  in  mystical  dogmas. 

There  is  something  holy  about  arithmetic  and  mechan- 
ics which  would  do  us  all  good  to  appreciate.  Any  one 
who  ventures  into  an  investigation  of  mechanical  laws  will 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  present  a  grandeur  of 
nature  which  is  truly  divine,  a  grandeur  which  shows  a 
wondrous  consistency  and  reliability,  which  always  re- 
mains faithful  to  itself,  which  brooks  no  exceptions,  and 
lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  grand  cosmic  order,  so  mysterious 
in  its  results  and  yet  ultimately  so  simple.  All  the  different 
happenings  in  the  world  are  applications  of  the  same  uni- 
versal principle,  and  all  the  differences  of  the  various  laws 
of  nature  are  ultimately  one  and  the  same  truth  differently 
applied. 

If  we  w  ere  omniscient  we  could  trace  the  same  niechan- 
icalism  everywhere  in  all  happenings.  We  would  be  able 
to  derive  every  special  truth  from  the  universal  law  of 
transformation  by  mechanical  changes  and  predict  what 
will  happen  under  given  circumstances  even  where  we  can 
have  no  personal  or  direct  experience.  The  laws  of  mech- 
anics give  us  a  key  to  the  riddles  of  all  the  events  that  hap- 
pen in  the  universe,  of  the  motions  of  atoms  as  well  as  the 
whirls  of  the  galaxies  of  whole  Milky  Ways. 

What  is  there  mean  or  low  in  the  domain  of  mechan- 
ics? How  can  we  look  down  upon  the  harmonious  order 
of  all  the  moving  bodies  so  as  to  make  us  feel  ashamed  of 
our  own  existence  for  partaking  of  this  same  disposition? 

The  dignity  of  man  justifies  us  in  speaking  of  the  di- 
vinity of  the  cosmic  constitution ;  and  the  grandeur  of  the 
cosmos  justifies  our  belief  in  the  dignity  of  man,  for  man 
is  the  highest  creature  of  creation  and  in  him  we  see  the 
cosmic  order  reflected — or  to  use  the  language  of  religion, 
man  is  an  incarnation  of  God. 


48  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

Whether  or  not  the  transaction  of  the  human  will  can 
be  explained  from  mechanistic  principles,  the  dignity  of 
man  remains  the  same,  and  as  soon  as  we  grant  that  man's 
appearance  on  earth  is  not  due  to  an  accident  but  to  the 
proper  working  of  natural  laws,  we  grant  that  the  rational- 
ity of  man,  which  conditions  his  ability  to  adapt  himself 
to  the  future,  to  direct  his  affairs,  and  to  pursue  plans,  is 
a  feature  that  has  its  counterpart  in  the  cosmic  order  of 
natural  laws,  and  the  cosmic  order  is  intrinsically  charac- 
teristic of  the  constitution  of  the  universe.  All  existence  is 
dominated  by  laws,  or  better,  it  exhibits  uniformities  that 
render  such  an  outcome,  the  procreation  of  rational  beings, 
not  only  possible  but  necessary,  and  we  can  trace  the  prog- 
ress of  anthropogenesis  step  by  step  as  produced  by  mech- 
anical law. 

What  can  there  be  unworthy  in  this  truth  ? 

THE   UNIVERSAL   AND   THE   PARTICULAR. 

What  surprises  us  mainly  when  we  consider  the  worth 
of  human  personality  is  the  particular,  the  peculiar,  the 
individual  character  of  every  single  man. 

On  the  one  hand  we  insist  that  all  men  are  brothers, 
that  we  must  respect  in  every  individual  person  his  human- 
ity, those  features  which  all  men  have  in  common,  consist- 
ing in  human  rationality  and  the  humaneness  shown  in 
their  superior  morality  which  raises  them  above  the  level 
of  the  beast.  On  the  other  hand  we  notice  that  no  two 
persons  are  alike.  Every  one  works  out  an  idiosyncrasy 
of  his  own,  and  while  we  respect  the  general  feature,  the 
humanity  of  man,  as  the  basis  on  which  we  recognize  him 
as  a  brother,  we  appreciate  at  the  same  time  that  particu- 
larity which  constitutes  his  individual  character,  his  unique 
selfhood,  his  particular  personality. 

A  herd  of  sheep  is  to  us  a  number  of  pieces  of  living 
things — of  wool  and  mutton.    We  do  not  care  for  the  in- 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  49 

dividualities  of  the  different  sheep.  We  ignore  their  par- 
ticular traits  except  in  so  far  as  they  have  a  bearing  on 
their  marketable  qualities,  the  tenderness  of  mutton  or  the 
softness  of  their  wool.  They  are  to  us  mere  numbers  of 
equivalent  units  that  can  be  expressed  in  pounds,  and  on 
account  of  our  indifference  most  of  us  are  unable  to  tell 
them  apart.  One  sheep  is  to  us  like  the  other,  but  in  reality 
they  are  individuals  and  are  by  no  means  absolutely  like 
one  another ;  for  all  things  in  this  world  possess  individual- 
ities of  their  own,  even  though  we  are  ignorant  of  the 
differences  and  may  not  be  able  to  appreciate  their  varia- 
tions. 

It  is  remarkable  that  snow  crystals  have  been  photo- 
graphed in  large  numbers,  and  yet  there  have  not  as  yet 
been  found  two  crystals  which  are  alike.  Every  one  pos- 
sesses its  own  individuality,  and  we  may  add,  a  soul  of 
its  own. 

The  general  law  according  to  which  snow  crystals  form 
is  universal.  The  law  is  the  same  under  any  and  all  con- 
ditions. Everywhere  we  observe  the  hexagonal  type  which 
makes  the  crystal  grow  at  angles  of  60°,  but  while  the 
law  is  general  the  variety  of  conditions  must  be  so  in- 
finitely illimitable  that  every  single  speck  of  vapor  forms  a 
crystal  of  its  own  making,  which  however  to  a  gross  ob- 
servation will  seem  like  all  the  rest  on  account  of  our  in- 
difference to  their  varieties. 

It  seems  to  us  probable  that  the  same  will  be  found  true 
in  all  things.  If  we  could  see  before  us  the  atoms  of  gold 
we  might  not  be  able  to  find  two  atoms  which  are  exactly 
alike,  while  all  of  them  would  be  expressions  of  the  same 
general  law.  And  further  what  is  true  of  the  smallest 
particles  of  existence  will  pro1)ably  be  true  of  larger  aggre- 
gates such  as  solar  systems  and  planets.  If  we  could  search 
the  heavens  we  would  find  it  difficult  to  find  two  planets 
which  would  show  the  same  conditions  in  their  general 


50  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

formation,  and  probably  also  in  the  development  of  life 
on  their  surfaces,  and  yet  all  of  them  would  be  subject  to 
the  same  law,  and  all  of  them  accordingly  would  have 
some  characteristics  in  common  with  the  rest. 

The  universe  seems  to  be  a  world  of  universal  law,  and 
at  the  same  time  of  a  particular  individuality  of  detail, 
and  it  appears  that  the  wonder  of  this  world  of  ours  is 
the  infinite  variety  of  forms  in  spite  of  the  rigorous  uni- 
formity which  we  call  law.  There  is  a  universal  order 
and  yet  a  liberty  of  individual  self-formation. 

Mathematical  space  is  the  same  all  through  and  yet 
every  point  in  it  has  its  own  special  place.  Why  should 
not  every  speck  of  existence  in  the  real  world  possess  its 
own  particular  quality? 

THE   DIVINITY   OF   THE   MECHANICAL   LAW. 

We  stand  midway  between  the  two  parties,  between  the 
mechanistic  scientist  and  the  teleological  thinker.  We  rec- 
ognize rigorously  the  mechanistic  principle  as  applicable 
to  all  motion,  but  for  that  reason  we  do  not  deny  that  there 
is  purpose  in  the  world.  Purposive  creatures  develop  with 
mechanical  necessity  and  their  appearance  in  the  cosmic 
process  is  significant.  We  even  grant  that  the  development 
of  the  world  has  a  definite  direction,  a  telos  or  aim,  but  we 
can  no  longer  conceive  of  this  aim  as  the  design  of  a 
demiurge,  of  a  world-builder,  who  after  the  fashion  of  a 
man  has  constructed  the  mechanism  of  the  universe  as  a 
watchmaker  makes  a  watch,  and  lets  it  run  in  a  mechanical 
way,  now  and  then  interfering  with  the  mechanism  by 
what  mortals  call  miracles.  The  direction  of  the  evolution 
of  worlds,  of  planetary  systems  and  of  the  development  of 
life  on  the  several  planets,  is  not  a  contrivance  of  an  all- 
wise  creator,  but  is  determined  intrinsically  by  the  divinely 
grand  immanent  order  of  consistency,  which  is  the  foun- 
dation of  all  the  uniformities  of  natural  phenomena. 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  5 1 

Our  aim  is  to  establish  a  rigidly  scientific  philosophy. 
We  recognize  onl)^  those  truths  which  can  stand  the  test 
of  scientific  critique.  Nevertheless  our  philosophy  is  not 
anti-religious  as  science  need  not  be  anti-religious.  We 
are  conservative,  for  we  see  in  religion  a  phenomenon 
that  develops  as  naturally  and  necessarily  as  human  soci- 
ety, the  state  and  other  institutions. 

The  several  religions,  foremost  among  them  Christian- 
ity, are  instinctive  attempts  to  attain  the  truth  needed  for 
practical  life.  It  is  natural  that  such  truths  have  been 
formulated  in  mythological  tales  and  in  allegorical  dogmas, 
and  it  is  but  fair  to  judge  dogmas  and  myths  according 
to  their  meaning.  Belief  in  the  letter  killeth,  and  the  truth 
of  religion  consists  in  the  spirit  of  its  doctrines. 

Not  the  least  valuable  doctrine  of  Christianity  is  the 
idea  of  God,  but  even  here  we  are  confronted  with  an 
allegory.  The  highest  efflorescence  in  the  universe  is  man 
and  so  it  is  quite  appropriate  to  represent  God.  the  All- 
being,  the  highest  and  absolute  authority  to  which  we  must 
conform,  under  the  simile  of  a  human  personality,  as  a  king 
or  a  father.  This  has  been  done  in  Greece  where  the 
Homeric  heroes  begin  their  prayer  ''Zen  Pater" ;  in  Rome 
were  Jupiter,  i.  e.,  Jove  the  father,  is  worshiped;  in  ancient 
Persia,  in  Judea,  in  Christianity,  in  China  (where  God  is 
called  Shang  Ti  =  the  emperor  on  high)  and  elsewhere. 
But  this  God-conception  must  not  be  taken  literally,  for 
God  is  not  and  cannot  be  an  individual  personality;  God 
is  super-personal.  He  is  not  a  person  in  the  sense  of  a 
concrete  human  personality,  with  human  limitations  in 
space  and  time,  with  successive  thoughts,  deliberations  and 
final  decisions.  His  thoughts  are  the  eternal  norms  of 
existence,  called  laws  of  nature  by  scientists,  and  wherever 
there  is  a  truth  that  has  never  originated  and  will  never 
pass  away  it  is  a  thought  of  God,  for  God  is  the  ultimate 


52  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE 

norm  of  truth,  the  ultimate  standard  of  goodness,  the  proto- 
type of  right,  the  authority  of  moral  conduct. 

If  God  were  an  individual  being,  there  would  be  above 
him  the  divinity  of  the  eternal  norm  of  all  order.  A  divine 
individual,  were  he  ever  so  grand,  would  be  a  god,  not  God, 
and  if  we  call  a  god-individual  "God"  there  would  be  a 
higher  authority  above  God,  there  would  be  the  Over-god, 
whose  norms  this  individual  god-being  would  have  to  heed, 
a  view  which  would  lead  us  to  fantastic  and  mythological 
ideas.  Accordingly  it  will  be  soberer  and  truer  to  reserve 
the  name  God  for  that  absolute  Divinity  who  is  the  norma- 
tive factor  that  shapes  the  world  and  who  at  the  same  time 
remains  to  all  his  creatures  the  ultimate  authority  of  moral 
conduct. 

The  world  wnth  all  its  wonderful  display  of  life  is  the 
result  of  the  cosmic  order.  There  is  an  eternal  law  that 
shapes  its  telos,  its  aim  and  end.  It  is  the  divine  dispen- 
sation according  to  which  from  the  very  beginning  the 
springs  which  prompt  existence  unfold  themselves  and 
manifest  their  inmost  meaning.  Thus  existence  tends  with 
mechanical  necessity  to  realize  itself,  and  in  doing  so  it 
manifests  the  divinity  of  the  world  order  whose  most 
general  features  are  mechanical. 

The  intrinsic  nature  of  the  world  order  is  best  under- 
stood by  a  contemplation  of  the  order  that  prevails  in  all 
the  purely  formal  sciences,  in  mathematics  and  logic,  in 
arithmetic  and  algebra,  which  is  most  obvious  and  presents 
itself  visibly  to  the  eye  in  geometry.  If  there  is  anything 
that  deserves  the  name  supernatural  we  must  grant  this 
term  to  these  purely  formal  sciences  or  rather  to  the  truths 
which  they  reveal.  They  hold  good  not  only  in  nature  as 
it  presents  itself  to  our  experience,  not  only  in  this  world 
of  ours  in  which  we  live,  but  in  all  possible  worlds  which 
might  exist  anywhere  or  anywhen,  and  they  will  remain 
true  even  if  nothing  existed  at  all. 


AND  THE   NON-MECHANICAL.  53 

The  direction  of  all  motion  of  the  world  is  not  arti- 
ficially imposed  upon  it  from  the  outside,  it  is  immanent; 
and  the  appearance  of  rational  purpose-ensouled  beings  is 
a  necessity  in  the  development  of  life,  because  the  cosmic 
order  renders  the  growth  of  rationality  necessary.  Ration- 
ality as  a  matter  of  truth,  is  nothing  but  the  recognition 
of  the  cosmic  order  and  the  practical  application  of  this 
recognition,  the  recognition  of  the  cosmic  order,  of  the 
nature  of  causation,  of  the  mechanistic  principle,  changes 
wild  haphazard  motions  into  the  provident  actions  of  a 
purposive  will. 

We  reach  the  conclusion  that  a  belief  in  the  divinity  of 
man,  in  his  responsibility  and  in  his  freedom,  is  quite  justi- 
fied, even  on  the  recognition  of  the  mechanistic  principle, 
and  tliat  the  popular  errors  held  about  these  ideas  on 
either  side,  from  the  teleological  and  from  the  mechanistic 
standpoints,  are  mistakes  which  by  no  means  touch  the 
essential  truths  which  obtain  in  both. 

A  deeper  investigation  into  the  constitution  of  existence 
and  the  significance  of  natural,  and  especially  mechan- 
ical, laws  proves  that  a  scientific  interpretation  of  the  facts 
will  by  no  means  degrade  the  character  of  man  or  give  us 
cause  to  embrace  a  dreary  pessimism.  The  laws  of  mech- 
anics are  the  most  general  laws  of  the  universe.  Nothing 
moves,  nothing  stirs  nor  happens  that  does  not  act  in  agree- 
ment with  the  laws  of  motion,  and  there  is  no  harm  in  it 
that  man's  activity  takes  place  in  perfect  agreement  with 
mechanical  laws. 

A  man's  a  man  for  a'  that! 


MARK  TWAIN'S  PHILOSOPHY/ 


WHAT  IS  MAN? 

MARK  TWAIN  wrote  a  book  entitled  IV hat  is  Man?  but  he  kept 
the  fact  a  secret  for  it  was  not  pubHshed  until  after  his  death.  It 
was  printed  in  New  York  at  the  De  Vinne  Press  in  an  edition  of  two 
hundred  and  fifty  copies,  during  July,  1906.  Its  copyright  dates 
from  the  same  year  and  it  is  prefaced  under  date  of  February,  1905, 
as  follows: 

The  studies  for  these  papers  were  begun  twenty-five  or 
twenty-seven  years  ago.  The  papers  were  written  seven 
years  ago.  I  have  examined  them  once  or  twice  per  year 
since  and  found  them  satisfactory.  I  have  just  examined 
them  again,  and  am  still  satisfied  that  they  speak  the  truth. 

Every  thought  in  them  has  been  thought  (and  accepted 
as  unassailable  truth)  by  millions  upon  millions  of  men — 
and  concealed,  kept  private.  Why  did  they  not  speak  out? 
Because  they  dreaded  (and  could  not  bear)  the  disapproval 
of  the  people  around  them.  Why  have  I  not  published? 
The  same  reason  has  restrained  me,  I  think.  I  can  find  no 
other. 

The  book  is  published  under  Mark  Twain's  own  name,  Samuel 
Langhorne  Clemens.  This  is  significant,  for  here  Mark  Twain  does 
not  speak  to  us,  but  Mr.  Clemens ;  not  a  humorist,  but  the  man  him- 
self who  has  written  under  the  pseudonym  "Mark  Twain."  This 
book  is  not  for  our  amusement,  but  for  our  instruction.     Here  our 

*  Because  the  quotations  from  Mr.  Clemens  are  the  most  important  fea- 
ture of  this  chapter,  they  are  printed  in  large  type  while  our  own  considerations 
and  objections  appear  in  more  modest  size.  Thus  indicating  difference  of 
authorship  by  difference  in  type  we  can  dispense  with  the  use  of  quotation 
marks  in  the  main  selections  from  Mark  Twain. 


MARK  TWAIN  S   PHILOSOPHY.  55 

author  does  not  mean  to  make  jokes,  he  is  serious.  He  is  too  serious 
to  make  any  attempt  at  giving  his  treatment  charm  or  pleasing  form. 
How  easy  would  it  have  been  to  treat  the  subject  in  the  happy  style 
of  his  unexcelled  humor!  He  absolutely  abstains  from  all  jollity 
for  to  him  the  truth  which  he  preaches  is  sad.  very  sad ;  he  claims 
that  man  is  a  machine — nothing  more. 

The  treatment  of  this  subject  is  keen  in  argument  but  dull,  in 
parts  it  is  extremely  dull,  and  dry  in  style.  It  is  cast  into  the  form 
of  a  monotonous  conversation  between  an  old  man  representing 
himself,  Mr.  Clemens,  in  his  matured  years,  and  a  youth  who  is  un- 
willing to  recognize  the  truth.     He  says: 

The  Old  Man  and  the  Young  Man  had  been  conversing. 
The  Old  Man  had  asserted  that  the  human  being  is  merely 
a  machine,  and  nothing  more.  The  Young  Man  objected, 
and  asked  him  to  go  into  particulars  and  furnish  his  reason 
for  his  position. 

NO  MERIT  IN   A  MACHINE. 

A  machine  has  no  merit.  An  inferior  machine — say  one  manu- 
factured of  stone — cannot  help  being  inferior  and  a  superior  machine 
does  not  deserve  credit  for  being  better.  The  conversation  con- 
tinues : 

Old  Man.  What  could  the  stone  engine  do? 

Young  Man.  Drive  a  sewing-machine,  possibly — noth- 
ing more,  perhaps. 

O.  M.  Men  would  admire  the  other  engine  and  rap- 
turously praise  it? 

Y.  M.  Yes. 

O.  M.  But  not  the  stone  one? 

Y.  M.  No. 

O.  M.  The  merits  of  the  metal  machine  would  be  far 
above  those  of  the  stone  one. 

Y.  M.  Of  course. 

O.  M.  Personal  merits? 

Y.  M.  Personal  merits?    How  do  you  mean? 

O.  M.  It  would  be  personally  entitled  to  the  credit  of 
its  own  performance? 


56  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

Y.  M.  The  engine?    Certainly  not. 

O.  M.  Why  not? 

Y.  M.  Because  its  performance  is  not  personal.  It  is 
a  result  of  the  law  of  its  construction.  It  is  not  a  merit 
that  it  does  things  which  it  is  set  to  do — it  can't  help  doing 
them. 

O.  M.  And  it  is  not  a  personal  demerit  in  the  stone 
machine  that  it  does  so  little? 

Y.  M.  Certainly  not.  It  does  no  more  and  no  less  than 
the  law  of  its  make  permits  and  compels  it  to  do.  There 
is  nothing  personal  about  it;  it  cannot  choose.  In  this 
process  of  "working  up  to  the  matter"  is  it  your  idea  to 
work  up  to  the  proposition  that  man  and  a  machine  are 
about  the  same  thing,  and  that  there  is  no  personal  merit 
in  the  performance  of  either  ? 

O.  M.  Yes — but  do  not  be  offended;  I  am  meaning  no 
offense.  What  makes  the  grand  difference  between  the 
stone  engine  and  the  steel  one?  Shall  we  call  it  training, 
education?  Shall  we  call  the  stone  engine  a  savage  and 
the  steel  one  a  civilized  man?  The  original  rock  con- 
tained the  stuff  of  which  the  steel  one  was  built — but  along 
with  it  a  lot  of  sulphur  and  stone  and  other  obstructing 
inborn  heredities,  brought  down  from  the  old  geologic  ages 
— prejudices,  let  us  call  them.  Prejudices  which  nothing 
within  the  rock  itself  had  either  power  to  remove  or  any 
desire  to  remove.    Will  you  take  note  of  that  phrase? 

Y.  M.  Yes.  I  have  written  it  down :  "Prejudices  which 
nothing  within  the  rock  itself  had  either  power  to  remove 
or  any  desire  to  remove."    Go  on. 

O.  M.  Prejudices  which  must  be  removed  by  outside 
influences  or  not  at  all.    Put  that  down. 

Y.  M.  Very  well:  "Must  be  removed  by  outside  in- 
fluences or  not  at  all."    Go  on. 

O.  M.  The  iron's  prejudice  against  ridding  itself  of  the 
cumbering  rock.    To  make  it  more  exact,  the  iron's  abso- 


MARK  TWAIN  S   PHILOSOPHY.  57 

lute  indifference  as  to  whether  the  rock  be  removed  or  not. 
Then  comes  the  outside  influence  and  grinds  the  rock  to 
powder  and  sets  the  ore  free.  The  iron  in  the  ore  is  still 
captive.  An  outside  influence  smelts  it  free  of  the  clogging 
ore.  The  iron  is  emancipated  iron,  now,  but  indifferent  to 
further  progress.  An  outside  influence  beguiles  it  into  the 
Bessemer  furnace  and  refines  it  into  steel  of  the  first  qual- 
ity. It  is  educated  now — its  training  is  complete.  And 
it  has  reached  its  limit.  By  no  possible  process  can  it  be 
educated  into  gold.    Will  you  set  that  down? 

Y.  M.  Yes.  "Everything  has  its  limit — iron  ore  can- 
not be  educated  into  gold." 

O.  M.  There  are  gold  men,  and  tin  men,  and  copper 
men,  and  leaden  men,  and  steel  men,  and  so  on — and  each 
has  the  limitations  of  his  nature,  his  heredities,  his  train- 
ing and  his  environment.  You  can  build  engines  out  of 
each  of  these  metals,  and  they  will  all  perform,  but  you 
must  not  require  the  weak  ones  to  do  equal  work  with  the 
strong  ones.  In  each  case,  to  get  the  best  results,  you  must 
free  the  metal  from  its  obstructing  prejudicial  ores  by  edu- 
cation— smelting,  refining,  and  so  forth. 

Y.  M.  You  have  arrived  at  man,  now? 

O.  M.  Yes.  Man  the  machine — man  the  impersonal 
engine.  Whatsover  a  man  is,  is  due  to  his  make,  and  to 
the  influences  brought  to  bear  upon  it  by  his  heredities,  his 
habitat,  his  associations.  He  is  moved,  directed,  com- 
manded, by  exterior  influences  —  solely.  He  originates 
nothing,  not  even  a  thought. 

Y.  M.  Oh,  come !  Where  did  I  get  my  opinion  that  this 
which  you  are  talking  is  all  foolishness? 

O.  M.  It  is  a  quite  natural  opinion — indeed  an  inevi- 
table opinion — but  you  did  not  create  the  materials  out  of 
which  it  is  formed.  They  are  odds  and  ends  of  thoughts, 
impressions,  feelings,  gathered  unconsciously  from  a  thou- 
sand books,  a  thousand  conversations,  and  from  streams 


I 


58  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

of  thought  and  feehng  which  have  flowed  down  into  your 
heart  and  brain  out  of  the  hearts  and  brains  of  centuries 
of  ancestors.  Personally  you  did  not  create  even  the 
smallest  microscopic  fragment  of  the  materials  out  of 
which  your  opinion  is  made;  and  personally  you  cannot 
claim  even  the  slender  merit  of  putting  the  borrowed  ma- 
terials together.  That  was  done  automatically — by  your 
mental  machinery,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  law  of  that 
machinery's  construction.  And  you  not  only  did  not  make 
that  machinery  yourself,  but  you  have  not  even  any  com- 
mand over  it. 

Y.  M.  This  is  too  much.  You  think  I  could  have 
formed  no  opinion  but  that  one? 

O.  M.  Spontaneously?  No.  And  you  did  not  form  that 
one;  your  machinery  did  it  for  you — automatically  and  in- 
stantly, without  reflection  of  the  need  of  it. 

THE  NATURE  OF  SOUL  AND  MIND. 

Mark  Twain  is  a  good  reasoner,  but  like  so  many  professional 
philosophers  he  falls  into  the  trap  of  his  own  nomenclature.  He 
personifies  abstract  ideas.  His  terms  such  as  "mind"  and  the  "ego," 
become  independent  beings,  and  he  has  much  to  say  of  the  task- 
master, of  the  stern  judge  whose  approval  every  one  seeks.  But  are  not 
our  mind  and  the  stern  master  whose  slaves  we  are,  parts  of  ourselves  ? 
This  stern  master  is  the  ultimate  court  of  appeal  which  has  origi- 
nated in  the  course  of  the  development  of  our  humanity  with  un- 
avoidable necessity  ;  he  is  the  climax  of  our  moral  evolution.  Every 
man  has  his  own  master  who  is  his  better  self,  representing  self- 
control,  and  the  height  thus  attained  is  different  in  different  persons. 
What  the  master  decides  is  our  own  decision. 

We  are  told  that  our  stern  master  is  a  terrible  tyrant ;  that  if 
we  do  a  good  deed  we  do  it  because  he  compels  us  to  do  it ;  and  if 
we  are  drunkards  or  thieves  or  murderers,  we  are  such  and  act 
accordingly  at  his  behest.    We  are  not  free,  we  are  his  slaves. 

Let  us  restate  the  facts  not  in  the  mythological  description  of 
Mark  Twain  but  as  they  really  are :  Man's  mind  is  a  complex  multi- 
tude of  ideas  more  or  less  systematically  arranged.  There  are  sen- 
sations and  different  centers  of  various  sensation,  there  are  motory 


MARK  TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  59 

centers,  there  is  a  language  center,  there  is  a  special  supreme  ruler 
of  the  whole  empire.  He  calls  himself  in  common  language  "I," 
and  this  "I"  (in  philosophical  language  called  ego)  is  practically 
what  Mark  Twain  calls  our  master. 

Now  let  us  bear  in  mind  that  man's  soul  is  a  very  complicated 
organism  and  consists  of  many  different  motor-ideas  which  press 
into  action.  They  are  relatively  independent  and  sometimes  irre- 
pressible. As  they  are  by  no  means  agreed  we  would  sometimes 
like  to  do  several  things  at  once  which  however  is  impossible.  We 
can  do  one  thing  only  at  the  time,  and  these  different  motor  ideas 
must  come  to  an  agreement.  Frequently  there  originates  a  quarrel 
among  the  motor  ideas  and  one — of  course  the  strongest  one — 
takes  the  lead  and  compels  the  others  to  keep  quiet,  at  least  at  the 
time.  The  quarrel,  commonly  called  deliberation,  ended,  we  say, 
"I  will  do  this."  This  "I"  is  the  center  of  our  mentality,  it  is  what 
Mark  Twain  calls  our  master,  but  closely  considered  this  terrible 
tyrant  is  only  another  name  for  the  representative  of  our  self. 

Mark  Twain  has  not  investigated  how  this  master  of  ours  has 
originated,  and  we  will  here  try  to  explain  the  character  of  this  im- 
portant piece  of  machinery  in  a  few  lines.  The  ego  of  man  is  ulti- 
mately nothing  but  a  center  of  thought.  It  is  the  mere  word  "I" 
and  this  word  represents  the  entire  personality.  It  is  like  the  apex 
of  a  pyramid.  Every  one  calls  himself  "I,"  but  ever}' one  is  different, 
and  this  little  word  means  all  the  motor  ideas,  all  the  thoughts,  the 
sentiments,  the  mental  and  bodily  faculties,  the  appetites,  ideas, 
conceptions,  aspirations,  convictions,  and  ideals  of  the  personality 
for  which  it  stands. 

Among  the  multitudes  of  our  tendencies  there  is  one  group 
predominant.  It  is  built  up  of  structures  forged  by  repeated  ex- 
periences and  fortified  by  education.  It  has  been  condensed  out  of 
innumerable  observations  and  reflections,  proclaiming  the  result  in 
the  shape  of  principles.  This  is  what  is  commonly  called  conscience. 
Mark  Twain  does  not  distinguish  between  the  "I"  and  the  con- 
science, but  we  would  say  that  they  are  by  no  means  the  same.  If 
the  conscience  takes  possession  of  the  *T"  and  makes  the  'T"  act 
according  to  its  dictates,  we  may  very  well  say  that  we  do  an  act 
for  duty's  sake,  but  no  human  person  can  do  it  unless  the  "I"  adopts 
the  advice  of  its  conscience,  and  it  is  natural  that  we  appreciate 
actions  done  in  this  way.  A  man-machine  in  which  the  conscience 
has  this  power  is  deeined  superior  to  one  in  which  the  behests  of 
the  stern  tyrant  arc  set  aside. 


/ 


6o  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

Besides  the  conscience  there  are  other  tendencies  which  have 
a  strong  hold  on  the  "I."  Among  them  we  will  mention  the  hanker- 
ing after  pleasure,  and  the  nature  of  our  pleasures  depends  very 
much  upon  the  constitution  of  a  personality  down  to  its  deepest  and 
most  elementary  roots  in  the  lower  structures  of  the  sensual  centers. 
There  are  men  of  all  kinds  of  temper  and  inclination,  developed 
under  different  conditions  of  life.  There  is  the  drunkard,  there  is 
the  combative  man  who  looks  for  a  quarrel,  there  is  the  lover  of  gain 
who  would  enjoy  taking  advantage  of  his  neighbor  in  business, 
there  is  the  miser,  and  besides  all  the  vicious  kinds  of  men  there 
are  those  of  indifferent  and  also  of  noble  tendencies. 

The  slightest  disposition  in  our  minds  may  be  characterized  as 
a  piece  of  machinery  which  will  assert  its  influence  upon  the  whole 
in  one  way  or  another.  The  whole  composition  of  the  soul  must 
be  granted  to  be  analogous  to  a  machine,  and  we  may  even  call  its 
activity  mechanical  or  machine-like.  Every  deliberation  in  the  minds 
of  man  is  a  mechanical  process,  and  we  may  very  well  speak  of  the 
dynamics  of  the  mind.  Educators  and  reformers  ought  to  know  this 
truth,  and  when  it  comes  to  practical  work  they  act  as  if  for  edu- 
cation nothing  was  needed  more  than  the  insertion  of  machinery 
which  will  work  for  good. 

The  tendency  to  stimulate  the  human  mind  by  wrong  motives 
for  accomplishing  good  ends  is  quite  common,  and  it  is  this  mainly 
which  Mark  Twain  criticizes  in  our  religious  teachings.  Mark 
Twain  is  quite  right  in  saying  that  a  pious  Christian  does  not  do 
an  act  of  self-sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  God  or  of  Christ,  or  whatever 
his  idea  may  be  of  the  all-compelling  divine  authority  which  he  obeys, 
but  he  follows  his  own  master  in  him,  and  he  must  please  him  first. 
But  what  he  really  means  to  say,  if  we  replace  his  mythological 
terminology  by  straight  facts,  is  this,  that  before  any  person  would 
live  up  to  a  certain  ideal  this  ideal  must  be  adopted  as  his  own ;  it 
must  gain  his  approval.  A  man  must  be  able  to  say :  'T  will  do  this 
work  of  self-sacrifice,"  and  Mark  Twain's  notion  in  attributing  to 
the  word  "I"  the  role  of  a  master  who  governs  us  had  better  be 
expressed  in  this  way,  that  nothing,  neither  our  vicious  hankering 
after  detrimental  pleasure  nor  our  nobler  tendencies  for  doing  good 
to  our  fellowmen  or  bringing  any  self-sacrifice,  can  be  done  by  us 
until  we  ourselves  decide  upon  the  course  of  action  we  want  to  pur- 
sue. This  means  that  every  one  in  coming  to  a  decision  must  be 
able  to  say:  'T  do  this  because  this  is  my  inmost  desire,"  "this 
pleases  me,"  "this  I  do  because  I  adopt  this  motor  idea  as  my  own." 


MARK  TWAIN's  PHILOSOPHY.  6l 

This  cerebral  structure  which  says  "I"  in  us,  this  apex  of  our  soul, 
the  center  of  our  personality,  pronounces  a  decision,  the  result  of  a 
deliberation,  and  is  an  expression  of  our  self.  Accordingly  this  is 
not  an  act  of  slavish  subjection,  but  it  characterizes  the  nature  of 
our  inmost  being. 

The  ego  of  man  is,  as  it  were,  surrounded  by  its  ministers  who 
represent  the  different  departments  of  his  being.  There  are  his 
animal  instincts,  there  are  his  preferences.  Every  man  has  his  own 
special  tendencies  and  ideals ;  there  are  some  who  are  anxious  to 
collect  treasures  of  art,  others  to  accomplish  certain  deeds,  others 
to  acquire  accomplishments,  others  to  make  a  fortune,  and  there 
is  no  limit  to  the  varieties  of  tendencies  in  different  persons.  The 
art  of  influencing  one's  fellows  consists  exactly  in  knowing  the 
idiosyncracies  wherewith  they  can  be  baited.  A  practical  psychol- 
ogist can  play  on  these  preferences  as  an  organist  may  play  on  the 
organ.  An  instance  of  how  different  characters  have  to  be  handled 
may  be  found  in  the  story  of  Reynard  the  Fox,  who  dupes  the  cat 
by  a  prospect  of  catching  mice  and  the  bear  by  his  fondness  for 
honey. 

Mark  Twain's  philosophy  is  true  as  to  facts  but  his  attitude 
is  wrong,  and  the  source  of  his  error  lies  in  the  mistaken  mythology 
in  which  he  dresses  his  psychological  nomenclature.  His  dialogue 
continues : 

NO  PERSONAL  MERIT. 

O.  M.  I  am  sorry,  but  you  see,  yourself,  that  your  mind 
is  merely  a  machine,  nothing  more.  You  have  no  command 
over  it,  it  has  no  command  over  itself — it  is  worked  solely 
from  the  outside.  That  is  the  law  of  its  make;  it  is  the 
law  of  all  machines. 

Y.  M.  Can't  I  ever  change  one  of  these  automatic  opin- 
ions? 

O.  M.  No.  You  can't  yourself,  but  exterior  influences 
can  do  it. 

Y.  M.  And  exterior  ones  only? 

O.  M.  Yes — exterior  ones  only, 

Y.  M.  That  position  is  untenable — I  may  say  ludi- 
crously untenable. 


62  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

O.  M.  What  makes  you  think  so? 

Y.  M.  I  don't  merely  think  it,  I  know  it.  Suppose  I  re- 
solve to  enter  upon  a  course  of  thought,  and  study,  and 
reading,  with  the  deliberate  purpose  of  changing  that  opin- 
ion; and  suppose  I  succeed.  That  is  not  the  work  of  an 
exterior  impulse,  the  whole  of  it  is  mine  in  persona;  for 
I  originated  the  project. 

O.  M.  Not  a  shred  of  it.  It  grew  out  of  this  talk  with 
me.  But  for  that  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  you. 
No  man  ever  originates  anything.  All  his  thoughts,  all 
his  impulses,  come  from  the  outside. 

Y.  M.  It's  an  exasperating  subject.  The  first  man  had 
original  thoughts,  anyway;  there  was  nobody  to  draw  from. 

O.  M.  It  is  a  mistake.  Adam's  thoughts  came  to  him 
from  the  outside.  You  have  a  fear  of  death.  You  did  not 
invent  that — you  got  it  from  outside,  from  talk  and  teach- 
ing.   Adam  had  no  fear  of  death — none  in  the  world. 

Y.  M.  Yes  he  had. 

O.  M.  When  he  was  created? 

Y.  M.  No. 

O.  M.  When,  then? 

Y.  M.  When  he  was  threatened  with  it. 

O.  M.  Then  it  came  from  the  outside.  Adam  is  quite 
big  enough ;  let  us  not  try  to  make  a  god  of  him.  None  but 
gods  have  ever  had  a  thought  which  did  not  come  from  the 
outside.  Adam  probably  had  a  good  head,  but  it  was  of 
no  sort  of  use  to  him  until  it  was  filled  up  from  the  outside. 
He  was  not  able  to  invent  the  triflingest  little  thing  with  it. 
He  had  not  a  shadow  of  a  notion  of  the  difference  between 
good  and  evil — he  had  got  the  idea  from  the  outside. 

To  this  rule  that  man  is  a  machine  and  that  the  grist  which  the 
will  of  his  mind  works  out  comes  from  the  outside,  even  a  genius 
is  no  exception. 

O.  M.  Shakespeare  created  nothing.  He  correctly  ob- 
served, and  he  marvelously  painted.    He  exactly  portrayed 


MARK  TWAIN's  PHILOSOPHY.  63 

people  whom  God  had  created ;  but  he  created  none  himself. 
Let  us  spare  him  the  slander  of  charging  him  with  trying. 
Shakespeare  could  not  create.  He  was  a  machine,  and 
machines  do  not  create. 

Mark  Twain  claims  that  there  is  no  personal  merit.  We  are 
what  we  are  because  God,  or  whatever  you  will  call  outside  in- 
fluences, made  us  so. 

O.  M.  Personal  merit?  No.  A  brave  man  does  not 
create  his  bravery.  He  is  entitled  to  no  personal  credit 
for  possessing  it.  It  is  born  to  him.  A  baby  born  with 
a  billion  dollars — where  is  the  personal  merit  in  that? 
A  baby  born  with  nothing — where  is  the  personal  demerit 
in  that?  The  one  is  fawned  upon,  admired,  worshiped, 
by  sycophants ;  the  other  is  neglected  and  despised — where 
is  the  sense  in  it? 

Y.  M.  Sometimes  a  timid  man  sets  himself  the  task 
of  conquering  his  cowardice  and  becoming  brave — and 
succeeds.    What  do  you  say  to  that? 

O.  M.  That  it  shows  the  value  of  training  in  right 
directions  over  training  in  wrong  ones.  Estimably  valu- 
able is  training,  influence,  education,  in  right  directions — 
training  one's  self-approbation  to  elevate  its  ideals.  . .  .In 
the  world's  view  he  is  a  worthier  man  than  he  was  before, 
but  he  didn't  achieve  the  change — the  merit  of  it  is  not 
his. 

The  Old  Man  explains  that  "David  was  brave  and  fought 
Goliath.  A  coward  would  not  have  done  it.  David  could  not  help 
being  brave."  This  shocks  the  Young  Man  who  exclaims,  "Hang  it, 
where  is  the  sense  in  his  becoming  brave  if  he  is  to  get  no  credit 
for  it?"  and  the  Old  Man  answers,  "The  sole  impulse  that  ever 
moves  a  person  to  do  a  thing"  is  "the  necessity  of  contenting  his 
own  spirit  and  winning  its  approval."  This  subject  is  discussed  in 
a  special  chapter,  and  this  idea  forms  the  key  to  Mark  Twain's 
psychology.     He  says : 


64  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

GOVERNING  MOTIVE  ALWAYS  SELF-APPROVAL. 

Yes,  this  is  the  law,  keep  it  in  your  mind.  From  his 
cradle  to  his  grave  a  man  never  does  a  single  thing  which 
has  any  first  and  foremost  object  but  one,  to  secure  peace 
of  mind,  spiritual  comfort,  for  himself. 

As  an  instance  he  cites  the  duel  of  Alexander  Hamilton.  He 
says: 

O.  M.  Alexander  Hamilton  was  a  conspicuously  high- 
principled  man.  He  regarded  duelling  as  wrong,  and  as 
opposed  to  the  teachings  of  religion — but  in  deference  to 
public  opinion  he  fought  a  duel.  He  deeply  loved  his 
family,  but  to  buy  public  approval  he  treacherously  de- 
serted them  and  threw  his  life  away,  ungenerously  leav- 
ing them  to  life-long  sorrow  in  order  that  he  might  stand 
well  with  a  foolish  world.  In  the  then  condition  of  the 
public  standards  of  honor  he  could  not  have  been  com- 
fortable with  the  stigma  upon  him  of  having  refused  to 
fight.  The  teachings  of  religion,  his  devotion  to  his  family, 
his  kindness  of  heart,  his  high  principles,  all  went  for 
nothing  when  they  stood  in  the  way  of  his  spiritual  com- 
fort. A  man  will  do  anything,  no  matter  what  it  is,  to 
secure  his  spiritual  comfort ;  and  he  can  neither  be  forced 
nor  persuaded  to  any  act  which  has  not  that  goal  for  its 
object.  Hamilton's  act  was  compelled  by  the  inborn  ne- 
cessity of  contenting  his  own  spirit ;  in  this  it  was  like  all 
the  other  acts  of  life,  and  like  all  the  acts  of  all  men's 
lives.  Do  you  see  where  the  kernel  of  the  matter  lies? 
A  man  cannot  be  comfortable  without  his  own  approval. 
He  will  secure  the  largest  share  possible  of  that,  at  all 
costs,  all  sacrifices. 

Y.  M.  A  minute  ago  you  said  Hamilton  fought  that 
duel  to  get  public  approval. 

O.  M.  I  did.  By  refusing  to  fight  the  duel  he  would 
have  secured  his  family's  approval  and  a  large  share  of 


MARK  TWAIN's   PHILOSOrHY.  65 

his  own;  but  the  public  approval  was  more  valuable  in 
his  eyes  than  all  other  approvals  put  together — in  the  earth 
or  above  it;  to  secure  that  would  furnish  him  the  most 
comfort  of  mind,  the  most  self-approval;  so  he  sacrificed 
all  other  values  to  get  it. 

Y.  M.  Some  noble  souls  have  refused  to  fight  duels,  and 
have  manfully  braved  the  public  contempt. 

O.  M.  They  acted  according  to  their  make.  They  val- 
ued their  principles  and  the  approval  of  their  families 
above  the  public  approval.  They  took  the  thing  they  valued 
most  and  let  the  rest  go.  They  took  what  would  give  them 
the  largest  share  of  personal  contentment  and  approval— 
a  man  always  does.  Public  opinion  cannot  force  that  kind 
of  men  to  go  to  the  wars.  When  they  go  it  is  for  other 
reasons.     Other  spirit-contenting  reasons. 

The  motives  which  are  generally  given  are,  according  to  the 
Old  Man,  wrong  names.  The  Young  Man  asks  for  the  meaning  of 
love,  hate,  charity,  revenge,  humanity,  magnanimity,  forgiveness, 
but  he  is  put  down  by  the  Old  Man  who  says : 

Dififerent  results  of  the  one  Master  Impulse:  the  ne- 
cessity of  securing  one's  self-approval.  They  wear  diverse 
clothes  and  are  subject  to  diverse  moods,  but  in  whatso- 
ever ways  they  masquerade  they  are  the  same  person  all 
the  time.  To  change  the  figure,  the  compulsion  that  moves 
a  man — and  there  is  but  one — is  the  necessity  of  securing 
the  contentment  of  his  own  spirit.  When  it  stops,  the  man 
is  dead. 

Y.  M.  That  is  foolishness.     Love — 

O.  M.  Why,  love  is  that  impulse,  that  law,  in  its  most 
uncompromising  form.  It  will  squander  life  and  every- 
thing else  on  its  object.  Not  primarily  for  the  object's 
sake,  but  for  its  own.  Wlien  its  object  is  happy  it  is  happy 
— and  that  is  what  it  is  unconsciously  after. 

Y.  M,  You  do  not  even  except  the  lofty  and  gracious 
passion  of  mother-love? 


66  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

O.  M.  No,  it  is  the  absolute  slave  of  that  law.  The 
mother  will  go  naked  to  clothe  her  child;  she  will  starve 
that  it  may  have  food ;  suffer  torture  to  save  it  from  pain ; 
die  that  it  may  live.  She  takes  a  living  pleasure  in  making 
these  sacrifices.  She  does  it  for  that  reward — that  self- 
approval,  that  contentment,  that  peace,  that  comfort.  She 
would  do  it  for  your  child  if  she  could  get  the  same  pay. 

Y.  M.  This  is  an  infernal  philosophy  of  yours. 

O.  M.  It  isn't  a  philosophy,  it  is  a  fact. 

No  other  motives  count.  That  impulse  in  us  is  our  master  and 
there  is  no  virtue,  no  self-sacrifice.     The  Old  Man  says: 

Men  pretend  to  self-sacrifices,  but  this  is  a  thing  which 
in  the  ordinary  value  of  the  phrase,  does  not  exist  and 
has  not  existed.  A  man  often  honestly  thinks  he  is  sacri- 
ficing himself  merely  and  solely  for  some  one  else,  but  he 
is  deceived ;  his  bottom  impulse  is  to  content  a  requirement 
of  his  nature  and  training,  and  thus  acquire  peace  for 
his  soul. 

THE  NATURE  AND  TRAINING  OF  CONSCIENCE. 

Y.  M.  Apparently,  then,  all  men,  both  good  and  bad 
ones,  devote  their  lives  to  contenting  their  consciences? 

O.  M.  Yes.  That  is  a  good  enough  name  for  it :  Con- 
science— that  independent  Sovereign,  that  insolent  absolute 
Monarch  inside  of  a  man  who  is  man's  Master.  There  arc 
all  kinds  of  consciences,  because  there  are  all  kinds  of  men. 
You  satisfy  an  assassin's  conscience  in  one  way,  a  philan- 
thropist's in  another,  a  miser's  in  another,  a  burglar's  in 
still  another.  As  a  guide  or  incentive  to  any  authorita- 
tively prescribed  line  of  morals  or  conduct,  (leaving  train- 
ing out  of  the  account,)  a  man's  conscience  is  totally 
valueless.  I  knew  a  kind-hearted  Kentuckian  whose  self- 
approval  was  lacking — whose  conscience  was  troubling 
him,  to  phrase  it  with  exactness — because  he  had  neglected 
to  kill  a  certain  man — a  man  whom  he  had  never  seen.  The 


MARK  TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  6/ 

Stranger  had  killed  this  man's  friend  in  a  fight,  this  man's 
Kentucky  training  made  it  a  duty  to  kill  the  stranger  for 
it.  He  neglected  his  duty — kept  dodging  it,  shirking  it, 
putting  it  ofif,  and  his  unrelenting  conscience  kept  perse- 
cuting him  for  his  conduct.  At  last,  to  get  ease  of  mind, 
comfort,  self-approval,  he  hunted  up  the  stranger  and 
took  his  life.  It  was  an  immense  act  of  self-sacrifice  (as 
per  the  usual  definition)  for  he  did  not  want  to  do  it,  and 
he  never  would  have  done  it  if  he  could  have  bought  a  con- 
tented spirit  and  an  unworried  mind  at  smaller  cost.  But 
we  are  so  made  that  we  will  pay  anything  for  that  content- 
ment— even  another  man's  life. 

Our  master  is  our  conscience,  but  the  Old  Man  concedes  at 
least  that  conscience  can  be  trained  to  shun  evil  and  prefer  good, 
but  under  all  circumstances  the  voice  of  the  conscience  is  admitted 
"for  spirit-contenting  reasons  only."  Concerning  conscience  Mark 
Twain  inserts  a  little  story.     He  says : 

O.  M.  I  will  tell  you  a  little  story: 

Once  upon  a  time  an  Infidel  was  guest  in  the  house  of  a 
Christian  widow  whose  little  boy  was  ill  and  near  to  death. 
The  Infidel  often  watched  by  the  bedside  and  entertained 
the  boy  with  talk,  and  he  used  these  opportunities  to  satisfy 
a  strong  longing  of  his  nature — that  desire  which  is  in  us 
all  to  better  other  people's  condition  by  having  them  think 
as  we  think.  He  was  successful.  But  the  dying  boy,  in 
his  last  moments,  reproached  him  and  said : 

"I  believed,  and  was  happy  in  it;  you  have  taken  mv 
belief  away,  and  my  comfort.  Now  I  have  nothing  left. 
and  I  die  miserable;  for  the  things  which  you  have  told 
me  do  not  take  the  place  of  that  which  I  have  lost." 

And  the  mother  also  reproached  the  Infidel,  and  said: 

"My  child  is  forever  lost,  and  my  heart  is  broken.  How 
could  you  do  this  cruel  thing?    We  have  done  you  no  harm 
but  only  kindness;  we  made  our  house  your  home,  you  were 
welcome  to  all  we  had,  and  this  is  our  reward." 


68  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

The  heart  of  the  Infidel  was  filled  with  remorse  for 
what  he  had  done,  and  he  said: 

"It  was  wrong — I  see  it  now ;  but  I  was  only  trying  to 
do  him  good.  In  my  view  he  was  in  error;  it  seemed  my 
duty  to  teach  him  the  truth." 

Then  the  mother  said: 

"I  had  taught  him,  all  his  little  life,  what  I  believed  to 
be  the  truth,  and  in  his  believing  faith  both  of  us  were 
happy.  Now  he  is  dead — and  lost;  and  I  am  miserable 
Our  faith  came  down  to  us  through  centuries  of  believing 
ancestors;  what  right  had  you,  or  any  one,  to  disturb  it? 
Where  was  your  honor,  where  was  your  shame? 

Y.  M.  He  was  a  miscreant,  and  deserved  death ! 

O.  M.  He  thought  so  himself,  and  said  so. 

Y.  M.  Ah — you  see,  his  conscience  was  awakened! 

O.  M.  Yes — his  self-disapproval  was.  It  pained  him 
to  see  the  mother  suffer.  He  was  sorry  he  had  done  a 
thing  which  brought  him  pain.  It  did  not  occur  to  him  to 
think  of  the  mother  when  he  was  mis-teaching  the  boy, 
for  he  w^as  absorbed  in  providing  pleasure  for  himself, 
then.  Providing  it  by  satisfying  what  he  believed  to  be 
a  call  of  duty. 

Y.  M.  Call  it  what  you  please,  it  is  a  case  of  awakened 
conscience.  That  awakened  conscience  could  never  get  it- 
self into  that  species  of  trouble  again.  A  cure  like  that  is 
a  permanent  cure. 

O.  M.  Pardon — I  had  not  finished  the  story.  We  are 
creatures  of  outside  influences  —  we  originate  nothing 
within.  Whenever  we  take  a  new  line  of  thought  and 
drift  into  a  new  line  of  belief  and  action,  the  impulse  is 
always  suggested  from  the  outside.  Remorse  so  preyed 
upon  the  Infidel  that  it  dissolved  his  harshness  toward  the 
boy's  religion  and  made  him  come  to  regard  it  with  toler- 
ance, next  with  kindness,  for  the  boy's  sake  and  the  moth- 
er's.    Finally  he  found  himself  examining  it.     From  that 


MARK  TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  69 

moment  his  progress  in  his  new  trend  was  steady  and 
rapid.  He  became  a  believing  Christian.  And  now  his 
remorse  for  having  robbed  the  dying  boy  of  his  faith  and 
his  salvation  was  bitterer  than  ever.  It  gave  him  no  rest, 
no  peace.  He  must  have  rest  and  peace — it  is  the  law  of 
our  nature.  There  seemed  but  one  way  to  get  it ;  he  must 
devote  himself  to  saving  imperiled  souls.  He  became  a 
missionary.  He  landed  in  a  pagan  country  ill  and  helpless. 
A  native  widow  took  him  into  her  humble  home  and  nursed 
him  back  to  convalescence.  Then  her  young  boy  was  taken 
hopelessly  ill,  and  the  grateful  missionary  helped  her  tend 
him.  Here  was  his  first  opportunity  to  repair  a  part  of 
the  wrong  done  to  the  other  boy  by  doing  a  precious  service 
for  this  one  by  undermining  his  foolish  faith  in  his  false 
gods.  He  was  successful.  But  the  dying  boy  in  his  last 
moments  reproached  him  and  said: 

'T  believed,  and  was  happy  in  it;  you  have  taken  my 
belief  away,  and  my  comfort.  Now  I  have  nothing  left 
and  I  die  miserable;  for  the  things  which  you  have  told  me 
do  not  take  the  place  of  that  which  I  have  lost." 

And  the  mother,  also,  reproached  the  missionary,  and 
said: 

"My  child  is  forever  lost,  and  my  heart  is  broken.  How 
could  you  do  this  cruel  thing?  We  had  done  you  no  harm, 
but  only  kindness;  we  made  our  house  your  home,  you 
were  welcome  to  all  we  had,  and  this  is  our  reward." 

The  heart  of  the  missionary  was  filled  with  remorse  for 
what  he  had  done,  and  he  said: 

"It  was  wrong — I  see  it  now ;  Init  I  was  trying  to  do  him 
good.  In  my  view  he  was  in  error;  it  seemed  my  duty  to 
teach  him  the  truth." 

Then  the  mother  said: 

*T  had  taught  him,  all  his  little  life,  what  I  believed  to 
be  the  truth,  and  in  his  believing  faith  both  of  us  were 
hnppy.     Now  he  is  dead — and  lost;  and  I  am  miserable. 


/O  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

Our  faith  came  down  to  us  through  centuries  of  believing 
ancestors;  what  right  had  you,  or  any  one,  to  disturb  it? 
Where  was  your  honor,  where  was  your  shame?" 

The  missionary's  anguish  of  remorse  and  sense  of 
treachery  were  as  bitter  and  persecuting  and  unappeas- 
able, now,  as  they  had  been  in  the  former  case.  The  story 
is  finished.    What  is  your  comment? 

Y.  M.  The  man's  conscience  was  a  fool !  It  was  morbid. 
It  didn't  know  right  from  wrong. 

O.  M.  I  am  not  sorry  to  hear  you  say  that.  If  you 
grant  that  one  man's  conscience  doesn't  know  right  from 
wrong,  it  is  an  admission  that  there  are  others  like  it. 
This  single  admission  pulls  down  the  whole  doctrine  of 
infallibility  in  consciences.  Meantime  there  is  one  thing 
which  I  ask  you  to  notice. 

Y.  M.  What  is  that? 

O.  M.  That  in  both  cases  the  man's  act  gave  him  no 
spiritual  discomfort,  and  that  he  was  quite  satisfied  with 
it  and  got  pleasure  out  of  it.  But  afterward  when  it  re- 
sulted in  pain  to  him  he  was  sorry.  Sorry  it  had  inflicted 
pain  upon  the  others,  but  for  no  reason  under  the  sun 
except  that  their  pain  gave  him  pain.  Our  consciences  take 
no  notice  of  pain  inflicted  upon  others  until  it  reaches  a 
point  where  it  gives  pain  to  us.  In  all  cases  without  ex- 
ception we  are  absolutely  indifferent  to  another  person's 
pain  until  his  sufferings  make  us  uncomfortable.  Many 
an  infidel  would  not  have  been  troubled  by  that  Christian 
mother's  distress.    Don't  you  believe  that? 

Y.  M.  Yes.  You  might  almost  say  it  of  the  average 
infidel,  I  think. 

O.  M.  And  many  a  missionary,  sternly  fortified  by  his 
sense  of  duty,  would  not  have  been  troubled  by  the  pagan 
mother's  distress — Jesuit  missionaries  in  Canada  in  the 
early  French  times,  for  instance;  see  episodes  quoted  by 
Parkman 


MARK  TWAIN  S   PHILOSOPHY.  7 1 

We  have  snuiggled  a  word  into  the  dictionary  which  ought 
not  to  be  there  at  all — self-sacrifice.  It  describes  a  thing 
which  does  not  exist.  But  worst  of  all,  we  ignore  and 
never  mention  the  sole  impulse  which  dictates  and  com- 
pels a  man's  every  act :  the  imperious  necessity  of  securing 
his  own  approval,  in  every  emergency,  and  at  all  costs. 
To  it  we  owe  all  that  we  are. 

DUTY   FOR  DUTY'S   SAKE. 

This  master  in  us  is  the  best  a  man  has  and  to  him  we  owe  our 
moral  progress.  This  doctrine  Mark  Twain  calls  the  "gospel  of 
self-approval."  He  illustrates  it  by  summing  up  the  contents  of  a 
novel  in  which  a  pious  man  abandons  his  lucrative  lumber  business 
and  devotes  himself  to  missionary  work.  He  neglect  all  his  duties 
in  life,  makes  all  those  dependent  on  him  miserable,  and  the  appar- 
ent motive  is  not  to  serve  the  cause  of  Christ,  but  his  vanity  in  being 
praised  and  flattered  by  a  circle  of  pious  Christians.  When  he  fails 
to  get  his  pay  he  is  disappointed.  The  conclusion  is  that  there  is 
no  self-sacrifice  for  others  in  the  common  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
for  "men  make  daily  sacrifices  for  others,  but  it  is  for  their  own 
sake  first."     The  same  is  true  of  duty : 

O.  M.  No  man  performs  a  duty  for  mere  duty's  sake; 
the  act  must  content  his  spirit  first.  He  must  feel  better 
for  doing  the  duty  than  he  would  for  shirking  it.  Other- 
wise he  will  not  do  it. 

Y.  M.  Take  the  case  of  the  Berkeley  Castle. 

O.  M.  It  was  a  noble  duty,  greatly  performed.  Take 
it  to  pieces  and  examine  it,  if  you  like. 

Y.  M.  A  British  troop-ship  crowded  with  soldiers  and 
their  wives  and  children.  She  struck  a  rock  and  began  to 
sink.  There  was  room  in  the  boats  for  the  women  and 
children  only.  The  colonel  lined  up  his  regiment  on  the 
deck  and  said,  "It  is  our  duty  to  die,  that  they  may  be 
saved."  There  was  no  murmur,  no  protest.  The  boats 
carried  away  the  women  and  children.  When  the  death- 
moment  was  come,  the  colonel  and  his  officers  took  their 


y2  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

several  posts,  the  men  stood  at  shoulder-arms,  and  so,  as 
on  dress-parade,  with  their  flag  flying  and  the  drums  beat- 
ing, they  went  down,  a  sacrifice  to  duty  for  duty's  sake. 
Can  you  view  it  as  other  than  that  ? 

O.  M.  It  was  something  as  fine  as  that,  as  exalted  as 
that.  Could  you  have  remained  in  those  ranks  and  gone 
down  to  your  death  in  that  unflinching  way? 

Y.  M.  Could  I  ?    No,  I  could  not. 

O.  M.  Think.  Imagine  yourself  there,  with  that  watery 
doom  creeping  higher  and  higher  around  you. 

Y.  M.  I  can  imagine  it.  I  feel  all  the  horror  of  it.  I 
could  not  have  endured  it,  I  could  not  have  remained  in 
my  place.    I  know  it. 

O.  M.  Why? 
Y.  M.  There  is  no  why  about  it:  I  know  myself,  and  I 
know  I  couldn't  do  it. 

O.  M.  But  it  would  be  your  duty  to  do  it. 

Y.  M.  Yes,  I  know— but  I  couldn't. 

O.  M.  It  was  more  than  a  thousand  men,  yet  not  one 
of  them  flinched.  Some  of  them  must  have  been  born  with 
your  temperament;  if  they  could  do  that  great  duty  for 
duty's  sake,  why  not  you  ?  Don't  you  know  that  you  could 
go  out  and  gather  together  a  thousand  clerks  and  mechan- 
ics and  put  them  on  that  deck  and  ask  them  to  die  for 
duty's  sake,  and  not  two  dozen  of  them  would  stay  in  the 
ranks  to  the  end? 

Y.  M.  Yes,  I  know  that. 

O.  M.  But  you  train  them,  and  put  them  through  ^ 
campaign  or  two;  then  they  would  be  soldiers;  soldiers, 
with  a  soldier's  pride,  a  soldier's  self-respect,  a  soldier's 
ideals.  They  would  have  to  content  a  soldier's  spirit  then, 
not  a  clerk's,  not  a  mechanic's.  They  could  not  content 
that  spirit  by  shirking  a  soldier's  duty,  could  they? 

Y.  M.  I  suppose  not. 

O.  M.  Then  they  would  do  the  duty  not  for  the  duty's 


MARK  TWAIN's  PHILOSOPHY.  73 

sake,  but  for  their  own  sake — primarily.  The  duty  was 
just  the  same,  and  just  as  imperative,  when  they  were 
clerks,  mechanics,  raw  recruits,  but  they  wouldn't  perform 
it  for  that.  As  clerks  and  mechanics  they  had  other  ideals, 
another  spirit  to  satisfy,  and  they  satisfied  it.  They  had 
to;  it  is  the  law.  Training  is  potent.  Training  toward 
higher  and  higher,  and  ever  higher  ideals  is  worth  any 
man's  thought  and  labor  and  diligence. 

THE  SEARCH  FOR  TRUTH. 

The  two  important  things  are  training  and  the  inherited  dis- 
position of  our  character. 

It  is  true  there  are  seekers  after  truth,  but  Mark  Twain  con- 
tends that  seeking  after  truth  is  only  temporary.  No  one  will  per- 
manently seek  after  truth.    The  Old  Man  says: 

We  are  always  hearing  of  people  who  are  around  seek- 
ing after  truth.  I  have  never  seen  a  (permanent)  speci- 
men. I  think  he  has  never  lived.  But  I  have  seen  several 
entirely  sincere  people  who  thought  they  were  (perma- 
nent) seekers  after  truth.  They  sought  diligently,  per- 
sistently, carefully,  cautiously,  profoundly,  with  perfect 
honesty  and  nicely  adjusted  judgment — until  they  believed 
that  without  doubt  or  question  they  had  found  the  truth. 
That  was  the  end  of  the  search.  The  man  spent  the  rest 
of  his  life  hunting  up  shingles  wherewith  to  protect  his 
truth  from  the  weather.  If  he  was  seeking  after  political 
truth  he  found  it  in  one  or  another  of  the  hundred  political 
gospels  which  govern  men  in  the  earth ;  if  he  was  seeking 
after  the  only  true  religion  he  found  it  in  one  or  another 
of  the  three  thousand  that  are  on  the  market.  In  any  case, 
when  he  found  the  truth  he  sought  no  further;  but  from 
that  day  forth,  with  his  soldering  iron  in  one  hand  and  his 
bludgeon  in  the  other  he  tinkered  its  leaks  and  reasoned 
with  objectors.  There  have  been  innumerable  temporary 
seekers  after  truth — have  you  ever  heard  of  a  permanent 


74  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

one?    In  the  very  nature  of  man  such  a  person  is  impos- 
sible. 

This  statement  is  repeated  near  the  end  of  the  discussion  where 
Mark  Twain  confesses  that  he  has  ceased  to  be  a  seeker  after  truth, 
near  the  end  of  the  story  where  he  says: 

I  told  you  that  there  are  none  but  temporary  truth- 
seekers;  that  a  permanent  one  is  a  human  impossibility; 
that  as  soon  as  the  seeker  finds  what  he  is  thoroughly  con- 
vinced is  the  truth,  he  seeks  no  further,  but  gives  the  rest 
of  his  days  to  hunting  junk  to  patch  it  and  caulk  it  and 
prop  it  with,  and  make  it  weather-proof  and  keep  it  from 
caving  in  on  him.  Hence  the  Presbyterian  remains  a  Pres- 
byterian, the  Spiritualist  a  Spiritualist,  the  Democrat  a 
Democrat,  the  Republican  a  Republican,  the  Monarchist  a 
Monarchist;  and  if  a  humble,  earnest  and  sincere  seeker 
after  truth  should  find  it  in  the  proposition  that  the  moon 
is  made  of  green  cheese,  nothing  could  ever  budge  him  from 
that  position ;  for  he  is  nothing  but  an  automatic  machine, 
and  must  obey  the  laws  of  his  construction.  And  so  having 
found  the  truth,  perceiving  that  beyond  question  man  has 
but  one  moving  impulse — the  contenting  of  his  own  spirit 
— and  is  merely  a  machine  and  entitled  to  no  personal 
merit  for  any  thing  he  does,  it  is  not  humanly  possible  for 
me  to  seek  further.  The  rest  of  my  days  will  be  spent  in 
patching  and  painting  and  puttying  and  caulking  my  price- 
less possession  and  in  looking  the  other  way  when  an  im- 
ploring argument  or  a  damaging  fact  approaches. 

THE  VALUE  OF  TRAINING. 
Concerning  training  we  Hsten  to  the  following  conversation: 

Y.  M.  Now  then,  I  will  ask  you  where  there  is  any 
sense  in  training  people  to  lead  virtuous  lives.  What  is 
gained  by  it? 

O.  M.  The  man  himself  gets  large  advantages  out  of 


MARK  TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  75 

it,  and  that  is  the  main  thing — to  him.  He  is  not  a  peril 
to  his  neighbors,  he  is  not  a  damage  to  them — and  so  they 
get  an  advantage  out  of  his  virtues.  That  is  the  main 
thing  to  them.  It  can  make  this  Hfe  comparatively  com- 
fortable to  the  parlies  concerned;  the  neglect  of  this  train- 
ing can  make  this  life  a  constant  peril  and  distress  to  the 
parties  concerned. 

Y.  M.  You  have  said  that  training  is  everything;  that 
training  is  the  man  himself,  for  it  makes  him  what  he  is. 

O.  M.  I  said  training  and  another  thing.  . .  .That  other 
thing  is  temperament — that  is,  the  disposition  you  were 
born  with.  You  can't  eradicate  your  disposition  nor  any 
rag  of  it — you  can  only  put  a  pressure  on  it  and  keep  it 
down  and  quiet.    You  have  a  warm  temper? 

Y.  M.  Yes. 

O.  M.  You  will  never  get  rid  of  it;  but  by  watching  it 
you  can  keep  it  down  nearly  all  the  time.  Its  presence  is 
your  limit.  Your  reform  will  never  quite  reach  perfection, 
for  your  temper  will  beat  you  now  and  then,  but  you  will 
come  near  enough.  You  have  made  valuable  progress  and 
can  make  more.  There  is  use  in  training.  Immense  use.  | 
....  Diligently  train  your  ideals  upward  and  still  upward 
toward  the  summit  where  you  will  find  your  chiefest  pleas- 
ure in  conduct  which,  while  contenting  you,  will  be  sure  to  I 
confer  benefits  upon  your  neighbor  and  the  community. 

Y.  M.  Is  that  a  new  gospel? 

O.  M.  No. 

Y.  M.  It  has  been  taught  before? 

O.  M.  For  ten  thousand  years. 

Y.  M.  By  whom? 

O.  M.  All  the  great  religions — all  the  great  gospels. 

Y.  M.  Then  there  is  nothing  new  about  it? 

O.  M.  Oh,  yes,  there  is.  It  is  candidly  stated,  this  time. 
That  has  not  been  done  before. 

Y.  M.  How  do  you  mean? 


76  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

O.  M.  Haven't  I  put  you  Urst,  and  your  neighbor  and 
the  community  afterward? 

Y.  M.  Well,  yes,  that  is  a  diiiference,  it  is  true. 

O.  M.  The  difference  between  straight  speaking  and 
crooked;  the  difference  between  frankness  and  shuffling. 

Y.  M.  Explain. 

O.  M.  The  others  offer  you  a  hundred  bribes  to  be  good, 
thus  conceding  that  the  Master  inside  of  you  must  be  con- 
ciliated and  contented  first,  and  that  you  will  do  nothing 
at  first-hand  but  for  his  sake ;  then  they  turn  square  around 
and  require  you  to  do  good  for  others'  sake  chiefly;  and 
to  do  your  duty  for  duty's  sake,  chiefly ;  and  to  do  acts  of 
self-sacrifice.  Thus  at  the  outset  we  all  stand  upon  the 
same  ground — recognition  of  the  supreme  and  absolute 
Monarch  that  resides  in  man,  and  we  all  grovel  before 
him  and  appeal  to  him ;  then  those  others  dodge  and  shuffle, 
and  face  around  and  unfrankly  and  inconsistently  and  il- 
logically  change  the  form  of  their  appeal  and  direct  its 
persuasions  to  man's  second-place  powers  and  to  powers 
which  have  no  existence  in  him,  thus  advancing  them  to 
first  place ;  whereas  in  my  admonition  I  stick  logically  and 
consistently  to  the  original  position:  I  place  the  Interior 
Master's  requirements  first,  and  keep  them  there. 

While  training  is  helpful  Mark  Twain  believes  that  man's  dig- 
nity and  the  merit  he  acquires  by  being  trained  must  be  surrendered. 
The  discussion  continues  on  this  subject  as  follows: 

Y.  M.  Then  you  believe  that  such  tendency  toward 
doing  good  as  is  in  men's  hearts  would  not  be  diminished 
by  the  removal  of  the  delusion  that  good  deeds  are  done 
primarily  for  the  sake  of  No.  2  instead  of  for  the  sake  of 
No.  I? 

O.  M.  That  is  what  I  fully  believe. 

Y.  M.  Doesn't  it  somehow  seem  to  take  from  the  dig- 
nity of  the  deed  ? 


MARK  TWAIN  S  PHILOSOPHY.  'JJ 

O.  M.  If  there  is  dignity  in  falsity,  it  does.  It  removes 
that. 

Y.  M.  What  is  left  for  the  moralist  to  do? 

O.  M.  Teach  unreservedly  what  he  already  teaches  with 
one  side  of  his  mouth  and  takes  back  with  the  other:  Do 
right  for  your  own  sake,  and  be  happy  in  knowing  that 
your  neighbor  will  certainly  share  in  the  benefits  resulting. 

Man  has  no  more  merit  than  the  materials  which  we  handle. 
For  instance: 

THE  FIGURE  OF  THE  GOLD  INGOTS. 

Here  are  two  ingots  of  virgin  gold.  They  shall  repre- 
sent a  couple  of  characters  which  have  been  refined  and 
perfected  in  the  virtues  by  years  of  diligent  right  training. 
Suppose  you  wanted  to  break  down  these  strong  and  well 
compacted  characters — what  influence  would  you  bring  to 
bear  upon  the  ingots  ? .  . .  . 

Y.  M.  A  steam-jet  cannot  break  down  such  a  sub- 
stance  

O.  M.  The  quicksilver  is  an  outside  influence  which 
gold  (by  its  peculiar  nature — say  temperament,  disposi- 
tion), cannot  be  indifferent  to.  It  stirs  the  interest  of  the 
gold,  although  we  do  not  perceive  it;  but  a  single  applica- 
tion of  the  influence  works  no  damage.  Let  us  continue 
the  application  in  a  steady  stream,  and  call  each  minute 
a  year.  By  the  end  of  ten  or  twenty  minutes — ten  or 
twenty  years — the  little  ingot  is  sodden  with  quicksilver, 
its  virtues  are  gone,  its  character  is  degraded.  At  last  it 
is  ready  to  yield  to  a  temptation  which  it  would  have  taken 
no  notice  of,  ten  or  twenty  years  ago.  We  will  apply  that 
temptation  in  the  form  of  a  pressure  of  my  finger.  You 
note  the  result? 

Y.  M.  Yes;  the  ingot  has  crumbled  to  sand. 

The  instance  of  two  ingots  of  gold  is  further  explained  by  a 


/ 


/ 


78  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

story  of  two  brothers,  which  is  probably  taken  from  some  newspaper 
account.     The  Old  Man  says: 

There  was  once  a  pair  of  New  England  boys — twins. 
They  were  alike  in  good  dispositions,  fleckless  morals,  and 
personal  appearance.  They  were  the  models  of  the  Sun- 
day-school. At  fifteen  George  had  an  opportunity  to  go 
as  cabin-boy  in  a  whale-ship,  and  sailed  away  for  the  Pa- 
cific. Henry  remained  at  home  in  the  village.  At  eighteen 
George  was  a  sailor  before  the  mast,  and  Henry  was 
teacher  of  the  advanced  Bible  class.  At  twenty-two  George, 
through  fighting-habits  and  drinking-habits  acquired  at 
sea  and  in  the  sailor  boarding-houses  of  the  European 
and  Oriental  ports,  was  a  common  rough  in  Hong  Kong, 
and  out  of  a  job;  and  Henry  was  superintendent  of  the 
Sunday-school.  At  twenty-six  George  was  a  wanderer, 
a  tramp,  and  Henry  was  pastor  of  the  village  church. 
Then  George  came  home,  and  was  Henry's  guest.  One 
evening  a  man  passed  by  and  turned  down  the  lane,  and 
Henry  said,  with  a  pathetic  smile,  "Without  intending  me 
a  discomfort,  that  man  is  always  keeping  me  reminded  of 
my  pinching  poverty,  for  he  carries  heaps  of  money  about 
him,  and  goes  by  here  every  evening  of  his  life."  That 
outside  influence — that  remark — was  enough  for  George, 
but  it  was  not  the  one  that  made  him  ambush  the  man  and 
rob  him,  it  merely  represented  the  eleven  years'  accumu- 
lation of  such  influences,  and  gave  birth  to  the  act  for 
which  their  long  gestation  had  made  preparation.  It  had 
never  entered  the  head  of  Henry  to  rob  the  man — his  ingot 
had  been  subjected  to  clean  steam  only;  but  George's  had 
been  subjected  to  vaporized  quicksilver. 

THE  MIND  AN  INDEPENDENT  MACHINE. 

A  peculiar  theory  of  Mark  Twain  is  his  idea  that  the  mind  is  a 
machinery  which  is  independent  of  man,  as  if  there  were  no  con- 
nection between  what  he  calls  the  stern  master  or  the  impulse  and 
the  mentality  of  man.     The  mind  works  whether  the  master  wants 


MARK   TWAIN  S   PHILOSOPHY.  79 

it  or  not.    The  Young  Man  asks  whether  man's  mind  works  auto- 
matically and  is  really  independent  of  control.    The  Old  Man  says: 

It  is  diligently  at  work,  unceasingly  at  work,  during 
every  waking  moment.  Have  you  never  tossed  about  all 
night,  imploring,  beseeching,  commanding  your  mind  to 
stop  work  and  let  you  go  to  sleep? — you  who  perhaps 
imagine  that  your  mind  is  your  servant  and  must  obey  your 
orders,  think  what  you  tell  it  to  think,  and  stop  when  you 
tell  it  to  stop.  When  it  chooses  to  work,  there  is  no  way 
to  keep  it  still  for  an  instant.  The  brightest  man  would 
not  be  able  to  supply  it  with  subjects  if  he  had  to  hunt  them 
up.  If  it  needed  the  man's  help  it  would  wait  for  him  to 
give  it  work  when  he  wakes  in  the  morning.  . .  .The  mind 
is  independent  of  the  man.  He  has  no  control  over  it,  it 
does  as  it  pleases.  It  will  take  up  a  subject  in  spite  of  him ; 
it  will  stick  to  it  in  spite  of  him;  it  will  throw  it  aside  in 
spite  of  him.  It  is  entirely  independent  of  him.  . .  .Yes, 
asleep  as  well  as  awake.  The  mind  is  quite  independent. 
It  is  master.  You  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  is  so 
apart  from  you  that  it  can  conduct  its  affairs,  sing  its 
songs,  play  its  chess,  weave  its  complex  and  ingeniously- 
constructed  dreams,  while  you  sleep  or  wake.  You  have 
imagined  that  you  could  originate  a  thought  in  your  mind, 
and  you  have  sincerely  believed  you  could  do  it. 

Mark  Twain  reminds  us  of  the  well-known  truth  that  some- 
times we  can  not  rid  ourselves  of  jingles  of  melodies  that  haunt  us, 
and  claims  that  mind  is  just  as  independent  in  dreams  as  when 
awake.    He  compares  the  dream  to  a  drama.    He  says: 

Your  dreaming  mind  originates  the  scheme,  consist- 
ently and  artistically  develops  it,  and  carries  the  little  drama 
creditably  through — all  without  help  or  suggestion  from 
you. 

Though  the  mind  is  independent  man  has  the  power  to  set  it 
to  work  on  the  subject  which  pleases  the  mind.    We  read: 


8o  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

O.  M.  A  man's  mind,  left  free,  has  no  use  for  his  help. 
But  there  is  one  way  whereby  he  can  get  its  help  when  he 
desires  it. 

Y.  M.  What  is  that  way? 

O.  M.  When  your  mind  is  racing  along  from  subject 
to  subject  and  strikes  an  inspiring  one,  open  your  mouth 
and  begin  talking  upon  that  matter — or  take  your  pen  and 
use  that.  It  will  interest  your  mind  and  concentrate  it, 
and  it  will  pursue  the  subject  with  satisfaction.  It  will  take 
full  charge,  and  furnish  the  words  itself.  . .  .Take  a  "flash 
of  wit" — repartee.  Flash  is  the  right  word.  It  is  out  in- 
stantly. There  is  no  time  to  arrange  the  words.  There  is 
no  thinking,  no  reflecting.  Where  there  is  a  wit-mechan- 
ism it  is  automatic  in  its  action,  and  needs  no  help.  Wliere 
the  wit-mechanism  is  lacking,  no  amount  of  study  and  re- 
flection can  manufacture  the  product. 

Y.  M.  You  really  think  a  man  originates  nothing,  cre- 
ates nothing? 

O.  M.  I  do.  j\Ien  perceive,  and  their  brain-machines 
automatically  combine  the  things  perceived.     That  is  all. 

Y.  M.  The  steam  engine? 

O.  M.  It  takes  fifty  men  a  hundred  years  to  invent  it. 
One  meaning  of  invent  is  discover.  I  use  the  word  in  that 
sense.  Little  by  little  they  discover  and  apply  the  multi- 
tude of  details  that  go  to  make  the  perfect  engine.  Watt 
noticed  that  confined  steam  was  strong  enough  to  lift  the 
lid  of  the  tea-pot.  He  didn't  create  the  idea,  he  merely  dis- 
covered the  fact;  the  cat  had  noticed  it  a  hundred  times. 
From  the  tea-pot  he  evolved  the  piston-rod.  To  attach 
something  to  the  piston-rod  to  be  moved  by  it,  was  a  simple 
matter — crank  and  wheel.  And  so  there  was  a  working 
engine. 

One  by  one,  improvements  were  discovered  by  men  who 
used  their  eyes,  not  their  creating  powers — for  they  hadn't 
any — and  now,  after  a  hundred  years,  the  patient  contri- 


MARK  TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  8l 

butions  of  fifty  or  a  hundred  observers  stand  compacted 
in  the  wonderful  machine  which  drives  the  ocean  Hner. 

THE  ANIMAL  MIND  AND  INSTINCT. 

The  animal  mind  is  not  different  from  the  mind  of  man,  only 
man's  mind  is  more  complicated  but  by  no  means  superior.  Shake- 
speare writes  a  drama  borrowing  from  preceding  ages.  He  puts 
this  and  that  together.  That  is  all  he  does  and  can  do,  but  so  does 
the  rat.    Concerning  the  rat  Mark  Twain  says: 

He  observes  a  smell,  he  infers  a  cheese,  he  seeks  and 
finds.  The  astronomer  observes  this  and  that;  adds  his 
this  and  that  to  the  this-and-thats  of  a  hundred  predeces- 
sors, infers  an  invisible  planet,  seeks  it  and  finds  it.  The 
rat  gets  into  a  trap;  gets  out  with  trouble;  infers  that 
cheese  in  traps  lacks  value,  and  meddles  with  that  trap 
no  more.  The  astronomer  is  very  proud  of  his  achieve- 
ment, the  rat  is  proud  of  his.  Yet  both  are  machines,  they 
have  done  machine  work,  they  have  originated  nothing, 
they  have  no  right  to  be  vain,  the  whole  credit  belongs  to 
their  Maker.  They  are  entitled  to  no  honors,  no  praises, 
no  monuments  when  they  die,  no  remembrance.  One  is  a 
complex  and  elaborate  machine,  the  other  a  simple  and 
limited  machine,  but  they  are  alike  in  principle,  function 
and  process,  and  neither  of  them  works  otherwise  than 
automatically,  and  neither  of  them  may  righteously  claim 
a  personal  superiority  or  a  personal  dginity  above  the 
other .... 

Y.  M.  It  is  odious.  Those  drunken  theories  of  yours 
— concerning  the  rat  and  all  that — strip  man  bare  of  all  his 
dignities,  grandeurs,  sublimities. 

O.  M.  He  hasn't  any  to  strip — they  are  shams,  stolen 
clothes.  He  claims  credits  which  belong  solely  to  his 
Maker ....  I  think  that  the  rat's  mind  and  the  man's  mind 
are  the  same  machine,  but  of  unequal  capacities — like  yours 
and  Edison's ;  like  the  African  pigmy's  and  Homer's ;  like 
the  Bushman's  and  Bismarck's. 


82  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE, 

Y.  M.  How  are  you  going  to  make  that  out,  when  the 
lower  animals  have  no  mental  quality  but  instinct,  while 
man  possesses  reason? 

O.  M.  What  is  instinct? 

Y.  M.  It  is  merely  unthinking  and  mechanical  exercise 
of  inherited  habit? 

The  term  instinct  is  meaningless.    The  Old  Man  says : 

Now  my  idea  of  the  meaningless  term  "instinct"  is, 
that  it  is  merely  petrified  thought;  solidified  and  made  in- 
animate by  habit ;  thought  which  was  once  alive  and  awake, 
but  is  become  unconscious — walks  in  its  sleep  so  to  speak. 

For  a  further  explanation  of  the  thinking  ability  of  animals 
the  Old  Man  presents  two  instances  concerning  gulls  supposed  to 
belong  to  the  most  stupid  animals. 

Here  is  the  experience  of  a  gull,  as  related  by  a  nat- 
uralist. The  scene  is  a  Scotch  fishing  village  where  the 
gulls  were  kindly  treated.  This  particular  gull  visited  a 
cottage ;  was  fed ;  came  next  day  and  was  fed  again ;  came 
into  the  house,  next  time,  and  ate  with  the  family;  kept 
on  doing  this  almost  daily  thereafter.  But,  once  the  gull 
was  away  on  a  journey  for  a  few  days,  and  when  it  re- 
turned the  house  was  vacant.  Its  friends  had  removed 
to  a  village  three  miles  distant.  Several  months  later  it 
saw  the  head  of  the  family  on  the  street  there,  followed 
him  home,  entered  the  house  without  excuse  or  apology, 
and  became  a  daily  guest  again.  Gulls  do  not  rank  high, 
mentally,  but  this  one  had  memory  and  reasoning  faculty. 

Here  is  a  case  of  a  bird  and  a  stranger  as  related  by 
a  naturalist.  An  Englishman  saw  a  bird  flying  around 
about  his  dog's  head,  down  in  the  grounds,  and  uttering 
cries  of  distress.  He  went  there  to  see  about  it.  The  dog 
had  a  young  bird  in  his  mouth — unhurt.  The  gentleman 
rescued  it  and  put  it  on  a  bush  and  brought  the  dog  away. 
Early  the  next  morning  the  mother-bird  came  for  the 


MARK   TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  83 

gentleman,  who  was  sitting  on  his  verandah,  and  by  its 
maneuvers  persuaded  him  to  follow  it  to  a  distant  part 
of  the  grounds — flying  a  little  way  in  front  of  him  and 
waiting  for  him  to  catch  up,  and  so  on ;  and  keeping  to  the 
winding  path,  too,  instead  of  flying  the  near  way  across 
lots.  The  same  dog  was  the  culprit;  he  had  the  young 
bird  again,  and  once  more  he  had  to  give  it  up.  Since  the 
stranger  had  helped  her  once,  she  inferred  that  he  would 
do  it  again ;  she  knew  where  to  find  him,  and  she  went  upon 
her  errand  with  confidence.  Her  mental  processes  were 
what  Edison's  would  have  been.  She  put  this  and  that 
together — and  that  is  all  that  thought  is — and  out  of  them 
built  her  logical  arrangement  of  inferences.  Edison  could 
not  have  done  it  any  better  himself. 

Y.  M.  Do  you  think  that  many  of  the  dumb  animals 
can  think? 

O.  M.  Yes — the  elephant,  the  monkey,  the  horse,  the 
dog,  the  parrot,  the  macaw,  the  mocking-bird,  and  many 
others.  The  elephant  whose  mate  fell  into  a  pit,  and  who 
dumped  dirt  and  rubbish  into  the  pit  till  the  bottom  was 
raised  high  enough  to  enable  the  captive  to  step  out,  was 
equipped  with  the  reasoning  quality.  Dogs  and  elephants 
learn  all  sorts  of  wonderful  things.  They  must  surely  be 
able  to  notice,  and  to  put  things  together,  and  say  to  them- 
selves, "I  get  the  idea,  now:  when  I  do  so  and  so,  as  per 
order,  I  am  praised  and  fed;  when  I  do  differently  I  am 
punished."     Fleas  can  be  taught  nearly  anything  that  a 

congressman  can As  a  thinker  and  planner  the  ant 

is  the  equal  of  any  savage  race  of  men ;  as  a  self-educated 
specialist  in  several  arts  she  is  the  superior  of  any  savage 
race  of  men ;  and  in  one  or  two  high  mental  qualities  she 
is  above  the  reach  of  any  man,  savage  or  civilized. 

Y.  M.  Oh,  come!  you  are  abolishing  the  intellectual 
frontier  which  separated  man  and  beast. 


84  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

O.  M.  I  beg  your  pardon.  One  cannot  abolish  what 
does  not  exist. 

Y.  M.  You  are  not  in  earnest,  I  hope.  You  cannot  seri- 
ously mean  to  say  there  is  no  frontier. 

O.  M.  I  do  say  it  seriously. 

The  Young  Man  objects  that  animals  are  dumb,  but  the  Old 
Man  flatly  denies  it.    He  says: 

"Dumb"  beast  suggests  an  animal  that  has  no  thought- 
machinery,  no  understanding,  no  speech,  no  way  of  com- 
municating what  is  in  its  mind.  We  know  that  a  hen  has 
speech.  We  cannot  understand  everything  she  says,  but 
we  easily  learn  two  or  three  of  her  phrases.  We  know 
when  she  is  saying,  "I  have  laid  an  egg" ;  we  know  when 
she  is  saying  to  the  chicks,  "Run  here,  dears,  I've  found  a 
worm";  we  know  what  she  is  saying  when  she  voices  a 
warning,  "Quick !  hurry !  gather  yourselves  under  mamma, 
there's  a  hawk  coming!"  We  understand  the  cat  when 
she  stretches  herself  out,  purring  with  affection  and  con- 
tentment and  lifts  up  a  soft  voice  and  says,  "Come,  kitties, 
supper's  ready" ;  we  understand  her  when  she  goes  mourn- 
ing about  and  says,  "Where  can  they  be? — they  are  lost 
— won't  you  help  me  hunt  for  them?"  and  we  understand 
the  disreputable  Tom  when  he  challenges  at  midnight  from 
his  shed,  "You  come  over  here,  you  product  of  immoral 
commerce,  and  I'll  make  your  fur  fly!"  We  understand 
a  few  of  the  dog's  phrases,  and  we  learn  to  understand  a 
few  of  the  remarks  and  gestures  of  any  bird  or  other  ani- 
mal that  we  domesticate  and  observe.  The  clearness  and 
exactness  of  a  few  of  the  hen's  speeches  which  we  under- 
stand is  argument  that  she  can  communicate  to  her  kind 
a  hundred  things  which  we  cannot  comprehend — in  a  word, 
that  she  can  converse.  And  this  argument  is  also  appli- 
cable in  the  Unrevealed.  It  is  just  like  man's  vanity  and 
impertinence  to  call  an  animal  dumb  because  it  is  dumb  to 
his  dull  perceptions 


MARK  TWAIN's  PHILOSOPHY.  85 

In  all  his  history  the  aboriginal  Australian  never 
thought  out  a  house  for  himself  and  built  it.  The  ant  is 
an  amazing  architect.  She  is  a  wee  little  creature,  but 
she  builds  a  strong  and  enduring  house  eight  feet  high — 
a  house  which  is  as  large  in  proportion  to  her  size  as  is 
the  largest  capitol  or  cathedral  in  the  world  compared  to 
man's  size.  No  savage  race  has  produced  architects  who 
could  approach  the  ant  in  genius  or  culture.  No  civilized 
race  has  produced  architects  who  could  plan  a  house  better 
for  the  uses  proposed  than  can  hers.  Her  house  contains 
a  throne-room;  nurseries  for  her  young;  granaries,  apart- 
ments for  her  soldiers,  her  workers,  etc. ;  and  they  and  the 
multifarious  halls  and  corridors  which  communicate  with 
them  are  arranged  and  distributed  with  an  educated  and 
experienced  eye  for  convenience  and  adaptability.  But 
let  us  look  further  before  we  decide.  The  ant  has  soldiers 
— battalions,  regiments,  armies;  and  they  have  their  ap- 
pointed captains  and  generals,  who  lead  them  to  battle. 

Y.  M.  That  could  be  instinct,  too. 

O.  M.  We  will  look  still  further.  The  ant  has  a  system 
of  government;  it  is  well  planned,  elaborate,  and  is  well 
carried  on. 

Y.  M.  Instinct  again. 

O.  M.  She  has  crowds  of  slaves,  and  is  a  hard  and  un- 
just employer  of  forced  labor. 

Y.  M.  Instinct. 

O.  M.  She  has  cows,  and  milks  them. 

Y.  M.  Instinct,  of  course. 

O.  M.  In  Texas  she  lays  out  a  farm  twelve  feet  square, 
plants  it,  weeds  it,  gathers  the  crop  and  stores  it  away. 

Y.  M.  Instinct,  all  the  same. 

O.  M.  The  ant  discriminates  between  friend  and  stran- 
ger. Sir  John  Lubbock  took  ants  from  two  different  nests, 
made  them  drunk  with  whisky  and  laid  them,  unconscious, 
by  one  of  the  nests,  near  some  water.    Ants  from  the  nest 


86  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

came  and  examined  and  discussed  these  disgraced  crea- 
tures, then  carried  their  friends  home  and  threw  the  stran- 
gers overboard.  Sir  John  repeated  the  experiment  a  num- 
ber of  times.  For  a  time  the  sober  ants  did  as  they  had 
done  at  first — carried  their  friends  home  and  threw  the 
strangers  overboard.  But  finally  they  lost  patience,  see- 
ing that  their  reformatory  efforts  went  for  nothing,  and 
threw  both  friends  and  strangers  overboard.  Come — is 
this  instinct,  or  is  it  thoughtful  and  intelligent  discussion 
of  a  thing  new — absolutely  new — to  their  experience ;  with 
a  verdict  arrived  at,  sentence  passed,  and  judgment  exe- 
cuted? Is  it  instinct? — thought  petrified  by  ages  of  habit 
— or  isn't  it  brand-new  thought,  inspired  by  the  new  oc- 
casion, the  new  circumstances? 

I  will  give  you  another  instance  of  thought.  Franklin 
had  a  cup  of  sugar  on  a  table  in  his  room.  The  ants  got 
at  it.  He  tried  several  preventives ;  the  ants  rose  superior 
to  them.  Finally  he  contrived  one  which  shut  off  access 
— probably  set  the  table's  legs  in  pans  of  water,  or  drew 
a  circle  of  tar  around  the  cup,  I  don't  remember.  At  any 
rate  he  watched  to  see  what  they  would  do.  They  tried 
various  schemes — failures,  every  one.  The  ants  were  puz- 
zled. Finally  they  held  a  consultation,  discussed  the  prob- 
lem, arrived  at  a  decision — and  this  time  they  beat  that 
great  philosopher.  The  formed  in  procession,  crossed  the 
floor,  climbed  the  wall,  marched  across  the  ceiling  to  a 
point  just  over  the  cup,  then  one  by  one  they  let  go  and 
fell  down  into  it !  Was  that  instinct — thought  petrified  by 
ages  of  inherited  habit? 

Y.  M.  No,  I  don't  believe  it  was.  I  believe  it  was  a 
newly-reasoned  scheme  to  meet  a  new  emergency. 

O.  M.  Very  well.  You  have  conceded  the  reasoning- 
power  in  two  instances.  I  come  now  to  a  mental  detail 
wherein  the  ant  is  a  long  way  the  superior  of  any  human 
being.     Sir  John  Lubbock  proved  by  many  experiments 


MARK   TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  87 

that  an  ant  knows  a  stranger-ant  of  her  own  species  in  a 
moment,  even  when  the  stranger  is  disguised — with  paint. 
Also  he  proved  that  an  ant  knows  every  individual  in  her 
hive  of  500,000  souls.  Also,  after  a  year's  absence  of  one 
of  the  500,000  she  will  straightway  recognize  the  returned 
absentee  and  grace  the  recognition  with  an  affectionate 
welcome.  How  are  these  recognitions  made?  Not  by 
color,  for  painted  ants  were  recognized.  Not  by  smell,  for 
ants  that  had  been  dipped  in  chloroform  were  recognized. 
Not  by  speech  and  not  by  antennae-signs  nor  contacts,  for 
the  drunken  and  motionless  ants  were  recognized  and  the 
friend  discriminated  from  the  stranger.  The  ants  were  all 
of  the  same  species,  therefore  the  friends  had  to  be  recog- 
nized by  form  and  feature — friends  who  formed  part  of 
a  hive  of  500,000!  Has  any  man  a  memory  for  form  and 
feature  approaching  that? 

Y.  M.  Certainly  not. 

O,  M.  Franklin's  ant  and  Lubbock's  ants  show  fine 
capacities  of  putting  this  and  that  together  in  new  and  un- 
tried emergencies  and  deducting  smart  conclusions  from 
the  combinations — a  man's  mental  process  exactly.  With 
memory  to  help,  man  preserves  his  observations  and  rea- 
sonings, reflects  upon  them,  adds  to  them,  re-combines,  and 
so  proceeds,  stage  by  stage,  to  far  results — from  the  tea- 
kettle to  the  ocean  greyhound's  complex  engine ;  from  per- 
sonal laber  to  slave  labor;  from  wigwam  to  palace;  from 
the  capricious  chase  to  agriculture,  and  stored  food ;  from 
nomadic  life  to  stable  government  and  concentrated  author- 
ity ;  from  incoherent  hordes  to  massed  armies.  The  ant  has 
observation,  the  reasoning  faculty,  and  the  preserving  ad- 
junct of  a  prodigious  memory;  she  has  duplicated  man's 
development  and  the  essential  features  of  his  civilization, 
and  you  call  it  all  instinct! 

Y.  M.  We  have  come  a  good  way.  As  a  result — as  I 
understand  it — T  am  required  to  concede  that  there  is  abso- 


88  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

lutely  no  intellectual  frontier  separating  man  and  the  un- 
revealed  creatures? 

O.  M.  That  is  what  you  are  required  to  concede.  There 
is  no  such  frontier — there  is  no  way  to  get  around  that. 
Man  has  a  finer  and  more  capable  machine  in  him  than 
those  others,  but  it  is  the  same  machine  and  works  in  the 
same  way.  And  neither  he  nor  those  others  can  command 
the  machine — it  is  strictly  automatic,  independent  of  con- 
trol, works  when  it  pleases,  and  when  it  doesn't  please,  it 
can't  be  forced. 

Y.  M.  Then  man  and  the  other  animals  are  all  alike,  as 
to  mental  machinery,  and  there  isn't  any  difiference  of  any 
stupendous  magnitude  between  them,  except  in  quantity, 
not  in  kind. 

O.  M.  That  is  about  the  state  of  it — intellectuality. 
There  are  pronounced  limitations  on  both  sides.  We  can't 
learn  to  understand  much  of  their  language,  but  the  dog, 
the  elephant,  etc.,  learn  to  understand  a  very  great  deal 
of  ours.  To  that  extent  they  are  our  superiors.  On  the 
other  hand  they  can't  learn  reading,  writing,  etc.,  nor  any 
of  our  fine  and  high  things,  and  there  we  have  a  large  ad- 
vantage over  them. 

Concerning  the  moral  sense  of  animals  the  Young  Man  expects 
his  old  friend  to  make  an  exception  in  favor  of  man,  but  the  Old 
Man  prefers  animals'  morality  to  man's.  He  says :  "I  wasn't  going 
to  hoist  man  up  to  that."  This  is  too  much  for  the  Young  Man  who 
claims  that  man  at  least  has  free  will  and  a  choice  between  different 
actions.  He  insists  that  while  animals  do  their  work  according  to 
their  machine,  man  determines  his  decisions,  and  in  doing  so  he 
exercises  free  will,  but  this  choice  Mark  Twain  claims  is  only  al- 
lowed to  the  mind.  Man's  stern  master  would  not  allow  free  choice. 
Part  of  the  discussion  reads  as  follows : 

O.  M.  The  mind  can  freely  select,  choose,  point  out, 
the  right  and  just  one — its  function  stops  there.  It  can 
go  no  further  in  the  matter.     It  has  no  authority  to  say 


MARK  TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  89 

that  the  right  one  shall  be  acted  upon  and  the  wrong  one 
discarded.    That  authority  is  in  other  hands. 

Y.  M.  The  man's? 

O.  M.  In  the  machine  which  stands  for  him.  In  his 
born  disposition  and  the  character  which  has  been  built 
around  it  by  training  and  environment. 

Y.  M.  It  will  act  upon  the  right  one  of  the  two? 

O.  M.  It  will  do  as  it  pleases  in  the  matter.  George 
Washington's  machine  would  act  upon  the  right  one; 
Pizarro's  mind  would  know  which  was  the  right  one  and 
which  the  wrong,  but  the  Master  inside  of  Pizarro  would 
act  upon  the  wrong  one. 

Y.  M.  Then  as  I  understand  it  a  bad  man's  mental 
machinery  calmly  and  judicially  points  out  which  of  two 
things  is  right  und  just — 

O,  M.  Yes,  and  his  moral  machinery  will  freely  act  upon 
the  one  or  the  other,  according  to  its  make.  His  tempera- 
ment and  training  will  decide  what  he  shall  do,  and  he  will 
do  it;  he  cannot  help  himself,  he  has  no  authority  over 
the  matter .... 

There  is  will.  But  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  intellectual 
perceptions  of  right  and  wrong,  and  is  not  under  their 
command.  David's  temperament  and  training  had  will, 
and  it  was  compulsory  force;  David  had  to  obey  its  de- 
crees, he  had  no  choice.  The  coward's  temperament  and 
training  possess  will,  and  it  is  compulsory;  it  commands 
him  to  avoid  danger,  and  he  obeys,  he  has  no  choice.  But 
neither  the  Davids  nor  the  cowards  possess  free  will — 
will  that  may  do  the  right  or  do  the  wrong,  as  their  mental 
verdict  shall  decide. 

SPIRITUAL  DECISIONS. 

We  note  here  that  all  decisions  are  spiritual.  The  Old  Man 
corrects  the  Young  Man  as  to  his  notion  of  materiality.    He  says : 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  material  covetousness.     All 


90  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

covetousiiess  is  spiritual.  The  Master  in  you  requires  that 
in  all  cases  you  shall  content  his  spirit — that  alone.  He 
never  requires  anything  else,  he  never  interests  himself  in 
any  other  matter. 

Y.  M.  Ah,  come!  When  he  covets  somebody's  money 
— isn't  that  rather  distinctly  material  and  gross  ? 

O.  M.  No.  The  money  is  merely  a  symbol — it  repre- 
j  sents  in  visible  and  concrete  form  a  spiritual  desire.  Any 
so-called  material  thing  that  you  want  is  merely  a  symbol : 
you  want  it  not  for  itself,  but  because  it  will  content  your 
spirit  for  the  moment.  ..  .There  is  that  pathetic  tale  of 
the  man  who  labored  like  a  slave,  unsatisfied,  until  he  had 
accumulated  a  fortune,  and  was  happy  over  it,  jubilant 
about  it;  then  in  a  single  week  a  pestilence  swept  away 
all  whom  he  held  dear  and  left  him  desolate.  His  money's 
value  was  gone.  He  realized  that  his  joy  in  it  came  not 
from  the  money  itself,  but  from  the  spiritual  contentment 
he  got  out  of  his  family's  enjoyment  of  the  pleasures  and 
delights  it  lavished  upon  them.  Money  has  no  material 
value ;  if  you  remove  its  spiritual  value  nothing  is  left  but 
dross.  It  is  so  with  all  things,  little  or  big,  majestic  or 
trivial — there  are  no  exceptions.  Crowns,  scepters,  pen- 
nies, paste  jewels,  village  notoriety,  world-wide  fame — 
they  are  all  the  same,  they  have  no  material  value:  while 
they  content  the  spirit  they  are  precious,  when  this  fails 
they  are  worthless. 

TEMPERAMENT. 

A  peculiar  notion  of  Mark  Twain  is  his  belief  in  the  self-advertise- 
ment of  all  different  nations,  all  agreeing  in  being  possessed  of  a  san- 
guine temperament.  The  main-spring  in  man's  life  is  his  temperament, 
his  desire  for  happiness,  not  his  intellectual  reflections.  Therefore 
there  is  no  need  of  worrying  about  such  a  distressing  doctrine  as  his 
philosophy  that  man  is  a  machine.    Mark  Twain  says : 

A  nation  can  be  brought — by  force  of  circumstances, 
not  argument — to  reconcile  itself  to  any  kind  of  govern- 


MARK   TWAIN  S   PHILOSOPHY.  9I 

iiient  or  religion  that  can  be  devised;  in  time  it  will  fit 
itself  to  the  required  conditions;  later,  it  will  prefer  them 
and  will  fiercely  fight  for  them.  As  instances,  you  have 
all  history:  the  Greeks,  the  Romans,  the  Persians,  the 
Egyptians,  the  Russians,  the  Germans,  the  French,  the 
English,  the  Spaniards,  the  Americans,  the  South  Amer- 
icans, the  Japanese,  the  Chinese,  the  Hindus,  the  Turks — • 
a  thousand  wild  and  tame  religions,  every  kind  of  govern- 
ment that  can  be  thought  of,  from  tiger  to  house-cat,  each 
nation  knowing  it  has  the  only  true  religion  and  the  only 
sane  system  of  government,  each  despising  all  the  others, 
each  an  ass  and  not  suspecting  it,  each  proud  of  its  fancied 
supremacy,  each  perfectly  sure  it  is  the  pet  of  God,  each 
with  undoubting  confidence  summoning  Him  to  take  com- 
mand in  time  of  war,  but  by  habit  able  to  excuse  it  and 
resume  compliments — in  a  word,  the  whole  human  race 
content,  always  content,  persistently  content,  indestructibly 
content,  happy,  thankful,  proud,  no  matter  what  its  re- 
ligion is,  nor  whether  its  master  be  tiger  or  house-cat.  Am 
[  stating  facts  ?    You  know  I  am. 

Mark  Twain  admits  that  there  are  different  temperaments,  and 
these  temperaments  are  inborn.  They  can  be  modified  but  not 
changed.  His  views  are  illustrated  in  two  friends  of  the  Young 
Man,  one  of  whom  he  calls  Burgess,  the  other  one  Adams.  He  says 
concerning  them : 

Their  life-histories  are  about  alike — but  look  at  the 
results!  Their  ages  are  about  the  same — around  about 
fifty.  Burgess  has  always  been  buoyant,  hopeful,  happy; 
Adams  has  always  been  cheerless,  hopeless,  despondent. 
As  young  fellows,  both  tried  country  journalism  —  and 
failed.  Burgess  didn't  seem  to  mind  it;  Adams  couldn't 
smile,  he  could  only  mourn  and  groan  over  what  had  hap- 
pened, and  torture  himself  with  \'ain  regrets  for  not  hav- 
ing done  so  and  so  instead  of  so  and  so — then  he  would 
have  succeeded.    Thcv  tried  the  law — and  failed.    Burgess 


i 


92  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

remained  happy — because  he  couldn't  help  it,  Adams  was 
wretched — because  he  couldn't  help  it.  From  that  day  to 
this,  those  two  men  have  gone  on  trying  things  and  failing : 
Burgess  has  come  out  happy  and  cheerful  every  time,  Adams 
the  reverse.  And  we  do  absolutely  know  that  these  men's 
inborn  temperaments  have  remained  unchanged  through 
all  the  vicissitudes  of  their  material  affairs.  Let  us  see 
how  it  is  with  their  immaterialities.  Both  have  been  zeal- 
ous democrats;  both  have  been  zealous  republicans;  both 
have  been  zealous  mugwumps.  Burgess  has  always  found 
happiness  and  Adams  unhappiness,  in  these  several  polit- 
ical beliefs  and  in  their  migrations  out  of  them.  Both  of 
these  men  have  been  Presbyterians,  Universalists,  Meth- 
odists, Catholics — then  Presbyterians  again,  then  Meth- 
odists again.  Burgess  has  always  found  rest  in  these  ex- 
cursions, and  Adams  unrest.  They  are  trying  Christian 
Science  now,  with  the  customary  result,  the  inevitable  re- 
sult. No  political  or  religious  belief  can  make  Burgess  un- 
happy or  the  other  man  happy.  I  assure  you  it  is  purely  a 
matter  of  temperament.  Beliefs  are  acquirements,  tem- 
peraments are  born;  beliefs  are  subject  to  change,  nothing 
whatever  can  change  temperament. 

This  is  the  reason  why  no  pessimistic  philosophy  can  ever  be- 
come dangerous.  Mark  Twain  himself  might  have  become  a  pes- 
simist through  the  recognition  of  this  sorry  truth,  but  his  tempera- 
ment would  not  allow  it.    The  discussion  on  the  subject  reads: 

Y.  M.  Look  at  the  matter  as  it  stands  now.  Man  has 
been  taught  that  he  is  the  supreme  marvel  of  the  creation ; 
he  believes  it;  in  all  the  ages  he  has  never  doubted  it, 
whether  he  was  a  naked  savage,  or  clothed  in  purple  and 
fine  linen,  and  civilized.  This  has  made  his  heart  buoyant, 
his  life  cheery.  His  pride  in  himself,  his  sincere  admira- 
tion of  himself,  his  joy  in  what  he  supposed  were  his  own 
and  unassisted  achievements,  and  his  exultation  over  the 
praise  and  applause  which  they  evoked — these  have  exalted 


MARK   TWAIN's   PHILOSOPHY.  93 

him,  enthused  him,  ambitioned  him  to  higher  and  higher 
flights ;  in  a  word,  made  his  Hf e  worth  the  Hving.  But  by 
your  scheme,  all  this  is  abolished;  he  is  degraded  to  a 
machine,  he  is  a  nobody,  his  noble  prides  wither  to  mere 
vanities;  let  him  strive  as  he  may,  he  can  never  be  any 
better  than  his  humblest  and  stupidest  neighbor ;  he  would 
never  be  cheerful  again,  his  life  would  not  be  worth  the 
living. 

O.  M.  You  really  think  that? 

Y.  M.  I  certainly  do. 

O.  M.  Have  you  ever  seen  me  uncheerful,  unhappy? 

Y.  M.  No. 

O.  M.  Well,  I  believe  these  things.  Why  have  they  not 
made  me  unhappy? 

Y.  M.  Oh,  well — temperament,  of  course!  You  never 
let  that  escape  from  your  scheme. 

O.  M.  That  is  correct.  If  a  man  is  born  with  an  un- 
happy temperament,  nothing  can  make  him  happy;  if  he 
is  born  with  a  happy  temperament,  nothing  can  make  him 
unhappy. 

THE  EGO. 

In  conclusion  we  represent  Mark  Twain's  explanation  of  the 
stern  master  which  governs  us,  which  is  the  "I,"  our  ego  or  the 
"me."     The  Old  Man  says: 

You  perceive  that  the  question  of  who  or  what  the  Me 
is,  is  not  a  simple  one  at  all.  You  say,  'T  admire  the  rain- 
bow," and  'T  believe  the  world  is  round,"  and  in  these 
cases  we  find  that  the  Me  is  not  all  speaking,  but  only  the 
mental  part.  You  say  'T  grieve,"  and  again  the  Me  is  not 
all  speaking,  but  only  the  moral  part.  You  say  the  mind  is 
wholly  spiritual;  then  you  say  "I  have  a  pain"  and  find 
that  this  time  the  Me  is  mental  and  spiritual  combined. 
We  all  use  the  "I"  in  this  indeterminate  fashion,  there  is 
no  help  for  it.    We  imagine  a  Master  and  King  over  what 


94  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

you  call  The  Whole  Thing,  and  we  speak  of  him  as  "I," 
but  when  we  try  to  define  him  we  find  we  cannot  do  it.  The 
intellect  and  the  feelings  can  act  quite  independently  of 
each  other;  we  recognize  that,  and  we  look  around  for  a 
ruler  who  is  master  over  both,  and  can  serve  as  a  definite 
and  indisputable  'T,"  and  enable  us  to  know  what  we 
mean  and  who  or  what  we  are  talking  about  when  we  use 
that  pronoun,  but  we  have  to  give  it  up  and  confess  that 
we  cannot  find  him.  To  me,  man  is  a  machine,  made  up 
of  many  mechanisms;  the  moral  and  mental  ones  acting 
automatically  in  accordance  with  the  impulses  of  an  in- 
terior Master  who  is  built  out  of  born  temperament  and 
an  accumulation  of  multitudinous  outside  influences  and 
trainings;  a  machine  whose  one  function  is  to  secure  the 
spiritual  contentment  of  the  Master,  be  his  desires  good 
or  be  they  evil ;  a  machine  whose  will  is  absolute  and  must 
be  obeyed,  and  always  is  obeyed. 

Y.  M.  Maybe  the  Me  is  the  Soul? 

O.  M.  Maybe  it  is.    What  is  the  Soul? 

Y.  M.  I  don't  know 

O.  M.  Neither  does  any  one  else. 

Y.  M.  What  is  the  Master? — or,  in  common  speech  the 
Conscience?     Explain  it. 

O.  M.  It  is  that  mysterious  autocrat,  lodged  in  man, 
which  compels  the  man  to  content  its  desires.  It  may  be 
called  the  Master  Passion — the  hunger  for  Self-Approval. 

Y.  M.  Where  is  its  seat? 

O.  M.  In  man's  moral  constitution.  . .  .It  is  indifferent 
to  the  man's  good;  it  never  concerns  itself  about  anything 
but  the  satisfying  of  its  own  desires.  It  can  be  trained  to 
prefer  things  which  will  be  for  the  man's  good,  but  it  will 
prefer  them  only  because  they  will  content  it  better  than 
other  things  would ....  It  is  a  colorless  force  seated  in  the 
man's  moral  constitution.  Let  us  call  it  an  instinct — a 
blind,  unreasoning  instinct,  which  cannot  and  does  not  dis- 


MARK  TWAIN  S  PHILOSOPHY.  95 

tinguish  between  good  morals  and  bad  ones,  and  cares 
nothing  for  the  results  to  the  man  provided  its  own  con- 
tentment can  be  secured;  and  it  will  always  secure  that. 
It  is  not  always  seeking  money,  it  is  not  always  seeking 
power,  nor  office,  nor  any  other  material  advantage.  In 
all  cases  it  seeks  a  spiritual  contentment,  let  the  means  be 
what  they  may.  Its  desires  are  determined  by  the  man's 
temperament — and  it  is  lord  over  that.  Temperament, 
Conscience,  Susceptibility,  Spiritual  Appetite,  are  in  fact 
the  same  thing.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  a  person  who 
cared  nothing  for  money? 

In  spite  of  Mark  Twain's  idea  that  no  amount  of  theory  will 
disturb  man's  happiness  or  his  self  content,  he  did  not  publish  his 
book  in  his  lifetime,  and  his  motives  for  it  are  discussed  at  the  end 
of  his  conversations,  as  follows: 

Y.  M.  I  have  thought  over  all  these  talks,  and  passed 
them  carefully  in  review.  With  this  result.  That — that — 
are  you  intending  to  publish  your  notions  about  man  some 
day? 

O.  M.  Now  and  then,  in  these  past  twenty  years,  the 
Master  inside  of  me  has  half-intended  to  order  me  to  set 
them  to  paper  and  publish  them.  Do  I  have  to  tell  you  why 
the  order  has  remained  unissued,  or  can  you  explain  so 
simple  a  thing  without  my  help? 

Y.  i\I.  By  your  doctrine,  it  is  simplicity  itself:  Outside 
influences  moved  your  interior  Master  to  give  the  order; 
stronger  outside  influences  deterred  him. 

O.  M.  That  is  correct.    Well? 

Y.  M.  Upon  reflection  I  have  arrived  at  the  conviction 
that  the  publication  of  your  doctrines  would  be  harmful. 
Do  you  pardon  me  ? 

O.  M.  Pardon  you?  You  have  done  nothing.  You 
are  an  instrument — a  speaking-trumpet.  Speaking-trum- 
pets are  not  responsible  for  what  is  said  through  them. 

Y.  M.  Well  to  begin:  it  is  a'  desolating  doctrine;  it  is 


96  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

not  inspiring,  enthusing,  uplifting.  It  takes  the  glory  out 
of  man,  it  takes  the  pride  out  of  him,  it  takes  the  heroism 
out  of  him,  it  denies  him  all  personal  credit,  all  applause; 
it  not  only  degrades  him  to  a  machine,  but  allows  him  no 
control  over  the  machine ;  makes  a  mere  cofifee-mill  of  him, 
and  neither  permits  him  to  supply  the  coffee  nor  turn  the 
crank;  his  sole  and  piteously  humble  function  being  to 
grind  coarse  or  fine,  according  to  his  make,  outside  im- 
pulses doing  all  the  rest. 

O.  M.  It  is  correctly  stated. 

ALL  CREDIT  BELONGS  TO  GOD. 

In  connection  with  Mark  Twain's  condemnation  of  man's  pride 
and  his  wrong  claim  to  glory  and  praise,  the  Old  Man  gives  all  the 
credit  of  the  accomplishments  of  man  to  God.  Concerning  the  vir- 
tues of  man  the  Old  Man  raises  the  question  "Who  manufactures 
them"?  and  the  Young  Man  answers  "God."  In  comment  on  this 
solution  of  the  Young  Man,  the  Old  Man  defends  his  position  thus  : 

O.  M.  Where  does  the  credit  of  it  belong? 

Y.  M.  To  God. 

O.  M.  And  the  glory  of  which  you  spoke,  and  the  ap- 
plause ? 

Y.  M.  To  God. 

O.  M.  Then  it  is  you  who  degrade  man. 

Y.  M.  You  have  made  a  machine  of  him. 

O.  M.  Who  devised  that  cunning  and  beautiful  mechan- 
ism, a  man's  hand  ? 

Y.  M.  God. 

The  Old  Man  sees  no  wrong  in  taking  the  vainglory  of  the  man 
out  of  him  and  crediting  God  with  all  blame  as  well  as  praise,  and 
he  adds:  "I  am  merely  calling  attention  to  the  fact,  nothing  more. 
Is  it  wrong  to  call  attention  to  the  fact,  is  it  a  crime?" 

Mark  Twain's  main  argument  as  to  the  machinelike  operations  of 
the  human  mind  is  quite  sound,  but  over  the  facts  he  casts  a  gloom 
which  is  of  his  own  making.  According  to  him  the  truth  that  man 
is  a  machine  takes  away  from  man  all  his  dignity,  for  everything  that 


MARK  TWAIN  S   PHILOSOPPTY.  97 

man  does,  everything  he  thinks  or  invents  or  plans,  comes  to  him 
from  the  outside,  and  the  very  start  of  man  is  due  to  outside  in- 
fluence ;  and  this  is  perfectly  true.  It  is  the  outside  from  which  we 
gather  our  experience,  and  experience  builds  up  man.  Man  appro- 
priates the  building-stones  of  his  mentality  from  experience,  and 
makes  them  his  own.  Man's  mind  is  an  echo  of  his  law-ordained 
surroundings  and  reflects  the  universal  order  of  the  cosmos. 

Mark  Twain  is  right  in  saying  that  everything  of  our  mind 
comes  from  the  outside.  Even  our  inborn  tendencies  have  been  built 
up  by  what  the  Buddhists  call  prior  existences.  They  come  to  us 
by  heredity  and  by  education  ;  there  is  nothing  in  us  which  we  do  not 
owe  to  the  surrounding  world.  This  is  a  truth  which  must  be 
acknowledged,  but  we  deny  that  it  carries  with  it  any  cause  for  de- 
pression or  melancholy.  On  the  contrary  we  find  that  we  are  chil- 
dren of  the  universe  and  that  the  universe  has  produced  us ;  or,  to 
speak  religiously,  every  one  of  the  creatures  of  the  universe  is  a 
child  of  God.  And  why  should  we  therefore  be  alarmed  at  the 
idea  that  man  is  not  original  when  we  see  that  he  is  simply  a  child 
of  the  All  from  which  he  has  sprung?  This,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
rather  a  cause  for  rejoicing  than  for  a  pessimistic  outcry  of  despair. 
We  will  end  our  discussion  of  Mark  Twain's  philosophy  in  quoting 
a  few  lines  from  De  Rerum  Nafura : 

"Thus  ever  do  a  thousand  subtle  threads 
Me  intertwine  with  that  surrounding  world 
Wherein  I  move.    I  contemplate  the  Vision : 
Of  me  it  is  a  part.    I  am  the  All; 
Albeit  that  which  into  Self  hath  grown 
Is  of  the  world  a  part :  This  bides,  I  pass. 
But  lo!  e'en  then,  in  that  which  unto  me 
The  not-I  seemed,  I  evermore  endure." 


LA  METTRIE'S  VIEW  OF  MAN  AS  A  MACHINE.^ 

LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  LA  METTRIE. 

Summed  up  briefly,  the  facts  of  Julien  Offray  de  la  Mettrie's 
life  are  as  follows:  He  was  bom  December  25,  1709,  in  St.  Malo. 
He  first  studied  the  humanities  with  brilliant  success  at  the  college 
of  Coutances  and  then  in  Paris.  In  1725  he  studied  natural  philos- 
ophy at  the  college  of  Harcourt  and  took  the  degree  of  doctor  of 
medicine  at  Rheims  and  began  to  practice  there.  In  1733  he  went 
to  Leyden  and  studied  under  Boerhaave.  The  next  year  he  trans- 
lated a  treatise  of  his  master  and  added  to  it  an  original  work  of  his 
own  which  gained  him  the  jealousy  of  older  physicians.  The  next 
years  were  spent  in  St.  Malo  where  besides  carrying  on  an  active 
practice  he  translated  and  wrote  medical  works  of  original  value. 
In  1742  he  went  to  Paris  and  became  physician  of  the  guards  but  lost 
his  patron,  the  Duke  of  Gramont,  in  an  early  battle.  In  the  same 
campaign,  La  Mettrie  suffered  from  a  severe  fever,  and  after  his 
recovery  had  his  philosophic  conjectures  printed  under  the  title  "The 
Natural  History  of  the  Soul."  This  work  aroused  the  wrath  of 
the  theologians  and  in  1746  he  went  to  Leyden  to  philosophize  in 
peace.  Here  he  wrote  "Penelope,"  a  satire  on  quackery,  and  "Man 
a  Machine."  The  latter  brought  down  upon  him  the  displeasure  of 
the  Leyden  clericals  of  all  denominations.  His  genius  and  un- 
fortunate condition  procured  him  a  refuge  in  Prussia  with  a  pension 
from  Frederick  the  Great.  He  went  to  Berlin  in  1748  where  he  was 
made  a  member  of  the  Royal  Academy  of  Science.  He  died  No- 
vember 11,  1751,  leaving  a  widow  and  a  five  year  old  daughter.  His 
royal  patron  closed  the  eulogy  which  he  wrote  for  the  Royal  Acad- 
emy with  these  words : 

"La  Mettrie  was  born  with  a  fund  of  natural  and  inexhaustible 

*An  English  translation  of  La  Mettrie's  well-known  work,  L'homme  ma- 
chine, has  recently  been  published  by  The  Open  Court  Publishing  Company 
(Chicago,  1912)  with  philosophical  and  historical  notes  by  Gertrude  Carman 
Bussey. 


LA  METTRIE's  view  OF  MAN  AS  A  MACHINE. 


99 


gaiety;  he  had  a  quick  mind,  and  such  a  fertile  imagination  that  it 
made  flowers  grow  in  the  arid  field  of  medicine.  Nature  had  made 
him  an  orator  and  a  philosopher ;  but  a  yet  more  precious  gift  which 
he  received  from  her  was  a  pure  soul  and  an  obliging  heart.  All 
those  who  are  not  imposed  upon  by  the  pious  insults  of  the  theo- 
logians mourn  in  La  Mettrie  a  good  man  and  a  wise  physician." 

During  his  life  La  Mettrie  was  subject  to  persecutions  and  also 
to  the  disappointment  that  he  found  no  serious  treatment  of  the 
great  problem  he  had  raised  among  men  of  science  but  on  the  con- 
trary was  pelted  with  dirty  accusations.    He  was  of  a  buoyant  tem- 


JULIEN    OFFRAY   DE   LA    METTRIE. 

perament,  and  during  the  worst  times  of  his  life  he  laughed  at 
trouble  and  showed  himself  ready  to  go  down  in  the  shipwreck  of 
the  storm  which  his  bold  love  of  truth  had  provoked.  As  an  instance 
of  the  attacks  to  which  he  was  exposed,  we  quote  one  of  the  opinions 
of  the  historians  of  philosophy  uttered  by  Professor  Hettner,  who 
says  of  him :  "Lamettrie  is  a  bold  libertine  who  sees  in  materialism 
only  the  justification  of  his  profligacy,"  and  this  opinion  is  recorded 
in  one  of  the  best  histories  of  philosophy. 

A  contemporary  artist,  G.  F.  Schmidt,  made  an  engraving  of 
the  ridiculed  advocate  of  mechanicalism  with  the  intention  of  repre- 
senting him    as   Democritus   the   laughing   philosopher.      Tt   is   the 


100  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

only  portrait  of  him  that  has  come  down  to  us,  and  since  La  Mettrie 
at  the  time  was  an  object  of  general  contempt  it  attracted  a  good  deal 
of  attention.  A  French  actor  and  a  friend  of  La  Mettrie,  M.  De- 
sormes,  had  the  picture  accompanied  by  a  few  French  lines  which 
read  as  follows: 

"Sous  ces   traits   vifs,  tu   vois  le  maitre 
Des  jeux,  des  ris  et  des  bons  mots; 
Trop  hardi  d'avoir  de  son  etre 
Ose  debrouiller  le  cahos. 
Sans  un  sage  il  etait  la  victime  des  sots." 

We  translate  these  lines  as  follows: 

"These  features  show  truly  the  master 
Of  jollities,  laughter  and  wit ; 
Too  bold  he  was  in  his  nature 
To  take  off  the  corners  of  it. 
He  would  have  been  but  for  one  sage 
The  victim  alas !  of  the  fools  of  his  age." 

Lessing  the  great  art  critic  not  only  of  his  age,  but  probably 
of  all  time,  saw  this  picture  and  used  it  as  an  instance  to  prove  one 
of  his  theories.  He  was  not  an  admirer  of  La  Mettrie,  and  seeing 
in  the  sarcastic  laugh  of  this  modern  Democritus  a  grin,  he  con- 
demned in  a  rather  hasty  and  overcritical  mood  all  the  pictures 
which  portrayed  laughing  faces. 

Lessing  says  in  his  Laokoon:  "La  Mettrie  who  had  himself 
painted  and  engraved  as  a  second  Democritus  laughs  only  the  first 
time  one  looks  at  him.  Repeated  contemplation  changes  the  phi- 
losopher into  a  fool,  his  laughter  changes  into  a  grin."  On  the 
basis  of  this  instance  Lessing  declares  that  neither  a  sculptor  nor  a 
painter  should  represent  anything  that  can  not  but  be  transitory, 
because  phenomena  which  burst  out  suddenly  and  disappear  at 
once,  as  for  instance  laughter,  produce  through  their  prolongation 
in  art  an  unnatural  and  therefore  unpleasant  impression,  which 
changes  what  might  be  pleasant  into  something  disgusting  and  re- 
pelling. This  view  goes  too  far.  With  all  due  respect  for  Lessing's 
ability  as  a  critic,  we  do  not  share  his  opinion  in  this  special  point. 
It  is  by  no  means  inadvisable  to  paint  galloping  horses  or  flying 
birds  or  a  dancing  Bacchante.  We  deem  it  quite  possible  to  pre- 
sent laughing  portraits  which  will  always  remain  pleasant,  but  in 
the  present  case  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  artist  intended  to 
depict  a  sarcastic  grin  rather  than  an  amiable  smile.  La  Mettrie's 
character  was  not  such  as  to  win  the  sympathy  of  his  contemporaries ; 


LA  METTRTK's  view  OF  MAN  AS  A  MACHINE.  lOT 

he  ridiculed  others  with  biting-  sarcasm  and.  as  expressed  in  the 
verse  of  Desormes.  he  disdained  to  take  off  the  corners  of  his 
satirical  nature. 

La  Mettrie  was  the  first  to  uphold  in  unmistakable  language  the 
application  of  the  mechanistic  principle  to  man.  In  addition  to 
publishing  his  book  L'homme  machine  he  carried  on  a  long  and 
interesting  controversy  with  his  adversaries,  among  whom  his  main 
victim  was  the  famous  naturalist  Haller,  a  Swiss  by  birth,  a  poet 
and  at  the  same  time  professor  of  medicine  in  the  University  of 
Gottingen. 

SIGNIFICANCE  OF  HIS   PHILOSOPHY. 

La  Mettrie's  significance  in  the  history  of  philosophy  has  some- 
times been  underrated  and  is  now  often  overrated.  He  is  decidedly 
a  prominent  thinker,  a  representative  of  a  great  and  important  truth, 
the  mechanistic  principle,  and  he  has  brought  it  before  the  public 
in  a  most  forcible  way  so  as  to  have  it  connected  with  his  name  for 
all  time  to  come.  He  was  a  martyr  of  his  cause,  and,  in  fear  of 
being  lynched,  he  had  to  flee  from  France  and  again  from  Holland, 
without  being  able  to  take  with  him  any  property  nor  even  sufficient 
clothes  for  the  journey,  but  he  had  the  good  fortune  to  be  protected 
by  a  royal  genius,  the  great  and  noble  king  Frederick  the  Second 
of  Prussia,  who  was  rightly  surnamed  the  Great  not  only  because 
he  gained  many  victories  on  the  battlefield  against  great  odds,  but 
above  all  because  he  was  a  philosopher  on  the  throne. 

It  is  a  pity  that  La  Mettrie,  this  clear  thinker  and  exact  scien- 
tist, was  yet  small  enough  to  attack  his  enemies  in  a  sarcastic  way 
which  ought  to  have  been  beneath  the  dignity  of  so  great  a  man. 
Poor  Haller,  trained  in  the  ponderous  methods  of  German  science, 
a  pious  Christian  of  a  most  reactionary  and  dogmatic  trend  of 
thought,  was  scarcely  a  match  for  the  nimble  wit  of  his  French 
antagonist  and  so  he  fell  repeatedly  a  prey  to  the  traps  which  La 
Mettrie  laid  for  him.  Haller  did  not  even  understand  the  irony  with 
which  La  Mettrie  dedicated  to  him  the  book  L'homme  machine,  and 
he  did  not  see  that  the  plagiarism  which  his  enemy  committed  was 
really  a  satire  and  a  parody.  La  Mettrie  published  a  French  trans- 
lation of  Haller's  love  verses  and  praised  the  poet,  but  in  doing  so 
La  Mettrie  sarcastically  turned  Haller's  tender  sentiments  into  frivo- 
lous jokes. 

We  can  easily  understand  how  an  impartial  reader  of  L'homme 
machine  will  become  prejudiced  against  the  author  by  the  vulgar 


102  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

instances  which  are  introduced  to  prove  the  contention  of  the  book. 
La  Mettrie  would  have  been  a  better  representative  of  his  theory  if 
his  presentation  had  been  more  dignified,  and  if  he  had  abstained 
from  the  improprieties  of  his  humor. 

Without  shutting  our  eyes  to  all  his  shortcomings  we  do  not 
mean  to  belittle  La  Mettrie  or  to  depreciate  the  work  he  has  done 
for  a  great  cause.  Let  us  remember  what  his  noble  protector  Fred- 
erick the  Great  said  about  him  in  his  eulogy  when  he  praised  not 
only  the  high  standing  of  his  philosophical  compass  but  also  the 
purity  of  his  life  which  was  indubitable  in  spite  of  the  cynicism  of 
his  language. 

La  Mettrie's  sarcasm  lays  him  open  to  the  suspicion  of  malevo- 
lence, but  we  know  through  Frederick  the  Great  that  he  was  an 
amiable  friend  and  it  is  not  likely  that  his  satirical  view  need  be 
interpreted  as  a  mean  streak  in  his  character.  We  can  not  assume 
that  he  took  delight  in  hurting  the  feelings  of  others,  but  we  may 
easily  understand  how  the  witty  Frenchman  enjoyed  a  laugh  at  his 
enemies'  expense  and  how  difficult  it  was  for  him  to  suppress  a 
joke — especially  if  the  joke  served  a  higher  purpose,  if  it  helped 
to  point  out  the  truth  of  his  cause. 

A  key  to  the  motive  of  La  Mettrie's  sarcasm  and  his  disregard 
for  the  feelings  of  others  may  be  found  in  the  preface  to  the  edition 
of  his  collected  works  where  he  confesses  to  cling  to  the  principle 
thus  expressed :  "Write  as  if  thou  wert  alone  in  the  universe  and 
hadst  nothing  to  fear  from  the  jealousies  and  prejudices  of  the 
people.    Otherwise  thou  wilt  miss  thy  purpose." 

SINCERITY. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  by  Friedrich  Albert  Lange  and  others, 
that  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  La 
Mettrie's  work.  Certainly  he  did  not  seek  pecuniary  gain,  for  he 
could  have  fared  much  better  in  life  if  he  had  kept  quiet.  He  was 
an  able  and  very  successful  physician  and  we  learn  from  his  medical 
satires  that  he  knew  but  too  well  how  much  better  quackery  paid 
than  a  rational  and  honest  treatment  of  patients.  In  fighting  for 
honesty  in  the  medical  profession,  he  knew  that  he  would  encounter 
much  hostility,  yet  he  preferred  stating  the  truth  to  the  easier 
method  of  following  the  ways  of  his  colleagues  by  gaining  the  con- 
fidence of  the  powerful  and  influential  to  his  own  advantage. 

We  need  not  approve  of  La  Mettrie's  methods  in  order  to  think 
that  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  his  good  intention  when  holding  up 


/ 


LA  METTRIE  S  VIEW  OF  MAN  AS  A  MACHINE.  IO3 

his  opponents  to  ridicule,  and  some  of  them  too  are  certainly  at 
fault,  for  their  accusations  of  licentiousness  have  never  been  proved. 
Even  his  enemies  have  never  produced  anything  positive  against  him 
which  would  show  his  character  in  a  bad  light.  Though  it  would  be 
out  of  place  to  present  him  as  a  saint,  we  have  no  reason  to  assume 
that  he  was  worse  than  the  average  men  of  his  time.  One  of  the 
worst  accusations  that  have  repeatedly  been  urged  against  him  was 
the  good  word  he  spoke  in  defense  of  criminals,  and  yet  herein  we 
must  recognize  that  in  the  progress  of  civilization  the  same  thought 
has  been  expressed  by  judges  as  well  as  by  the  public  in  general, 
and  our  present  methods  of  treating  criminals  has  decidedly  ap- 
proached La  Mettrie's  conception  of  justice. 

We  must  recognize  that  La  Mettrie  has  become  the  scapegoat 
of  materialism,  and  thinkers  who  accept  his  very  theories  have  long 
been  in  the  habit,  as  F.  A.  Lange  pointed  out,  of  excusing  themselves 
by  denouncing  La  Mettrie,  and  pouring  out  upon  his  head  the  vials 
of  their  indignation,  protesting  that  they  themselves  were  not  of 
his  type.  It  was  a  cheap  way  of  gaining  the  reader's  captatio  hene- 
z'olentiae,  at  the  cost  of  a  much  maligned  representative  of  mate- 
rialism. 

HIS    SIGNIFICANCE. 

La  Mettrie  remained  the  scapegoat  of  an  ostracized  philosophy 
until  Friedrich  Albert  Lange  turned  the  tide.  In  his  History  of 
Materialism,  Lange  stood  up  for  La  Mettrie  and  corrected  the  wrong 
impressions,  due  to  slander  and  misrepresentation.  Lange's  chapter 
on  La  Mettrie  as  the  most  prominent  and  most  consistent  represen- 
tative of  materialism-  is  probably  still  the  best  that  has  been  written 
on  him.  It  has  been  well  supplemented  recently  by  Dr.  Ernst  Berg- 
mann,  a  Privatdosent  of  Leipsic,  in  his  little  book  Die  Satircn  des 
Herrn  Maschine  (Leipsic,  1913). 

We  sum  up :  La  Mettrie  states  an  important  truth  and  we  grant 
that  all  motions,  including  the  entire  activity  of  the  human  brain, 
are  mechanical  and  that  therefore  and  in  this  sense  man  is  a  machine. 
On  the  other  hand  we  do  not  hesitate  to  condemn  in  La  Mettrie  his 
onesidedness,  the  impropriety  of  his  presentation  in  some  details  and 
the  sarcastic  manner  of  his  polemics. 

By  means  of  short  extracts  we  will  let  La  Mettrie  state  his 
position  so  that  the  reader  can  easily  form  his  own  opinion  of  it. 
He  says: 

'Geschichte  des  Materialismus,  Part  IV,  Chapter  2.     (Vol.  I,  pp.  326,359.) 


T04  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

"It  is  not  enough  for  a  wise  man  to  study  nature  and  truth; 
he  should  dare  state  the  truth  for  the  benefit  of  the  few  who  are 
wilHng  and  able  to  think.  As  for  the  rest,  who  are  voluntarily  slaves 
of  prejudice,  they  can  no  more  attain  truth,  than  frogs  can  fly. 

''I  reduce  to  two  the  systems  of  philosophy  which  deal  with 
man's  soul.  The  first  and  older  system  is  materialism ;  the  second 
is  spiritualism." 

MECHANICALISM. 

La  Mettrie  claims  that  his  theory  is  based  on  experience,  but 
obviously  experience  is  not  in  favor  of  the  mechanistic  theory.  Our 
belief  in  mechanicalism  is  the  result  of  a  purely  a  priori  considera- 
tion. Even  at  the  present  day  chemistry  must  confess  that  a  mechan- 
ical explanation  of  strictly  chemical  processes  is  as  yet  impossible. 
We  must  assume  the  theory  of  mechanicalism  as  an  inevitable  con- 
clusion of  the  principle  that  all  changes  are  transformation,  but  we 
have  not  yet  demonstrated  this  conclusion  in  experience. 

A  chemical  combination  shows  absolutely  new  qualities  which 
can  not  be  explained  as  a  mixture  of  the  qualities  of  its  ingredients, 
and  we  have  as  yet  no  means  to  account  for  higher  combinations 
by  a  mechanical  interaction.  Nevertheless  many  chemists  accept 
the  mechanistic  principle  a»  applicable  to  chemical  combinations  be- 
cause speculation  can  discover  no  other  way  of  explaining  pro- 
cesses of  any  kind  than  as  results  of  a  mechanical  interaction  or 
cooperation  of  parts.  Under  these  conditions  we  see  ourselves 
obliged  to  assume  that  there  is  a  molecular  mechanics,  the  pro- 
portions of  which,  however,  are  too  infinitesimally  small  for  our 
best  microscopes  to  make  visible.  Accordingly  we  must  be  satis- 
fied wath  the  belief  that  ultimately  they  are  mechanical.  So  far  at 
least  we  know  nothing  to  the  contrary,  nothing  that  would  definitely 
destroy  our  hope  that  there  are  no  processes  the  nature  of  which 
could  not  ultimately  be  explained  by  the  interrelations  of  their  parts. 

HIS  METHODS. 

La  Mettrie  is  unconscious  that  he  is  arguing  a  priori,  and  it  is 
a  common  occurrence  that  those  naturalists  who  clamor  most  for 
the  necessity  of  limiting  science  to  experience  are  most  strongly 
carried  away  by  a  priori  methods.  They  believe  that  we  must  rely 
on  experience  alone,  and  should  not  be  allowed  to  generalize ;  yet 
naturalists  of  this  type  are  most  insistent  in  declaring  that  natural 
laws  suffer  no  exceptions.    The  statement  may  be  true  enough,  but 


LA  METTRIE's  view  OF  MAN  AS  A  MACHINE.  IO5 

it  can  never  be  proved  by  experience  nor  by  induction ;  in  its  sweep- 
ing universality  it  is  obviously  a  deduction  from  general  principles. 
La  Mettrie  is  no  exception  to  the  general  rule,  and  his  many  evi- 
dences of  the  interconnection  between  soul  and  body,  true  as  they 
may  be,  can  not  carry  conviction,  because  they  prove  nothing  but 
the  fact  stated,  i.  e.,  an  interconnection  between  soul  and  body,  not 
their  identit)-, 

"Man  is  so  complicated  a  machine  that  it  is  impossible  to  get 
a  clear  idea  of  the  machine  beforehand,  and  hence  impossible  to  de- 
fine it.  For  this  reason,  all  the  investigations  have  been  vain,  which 
the  greatest  philosophers  have  made  a  priori,  that  is  to  say,  in  so 
far  as  they  use,  as  it  were,  the  wings  of  the  spirit.  Thus  it  is  only 
a  posteriori  or  by  trying  to  disentangle  the  soul  from  the  organs 
of  the  body,  so  to  speak,  that  one  can  reach  the  highest  probability 
concerning  man's  own  nature,  even  though  one  can  not  discover  with 
certainty  what  his  nature  is. 

"Let  us  then  take  in  our  hands  the  staff  of  experience,  paying 
no  heed  to  the  accounts  of  all  the  idle  theories  of  philosophers.  To 
be  blind  and  to  think  that  one  can  do  without  this  staff  is  the  worst 
kind  of  blindness.  How  truly  a  contemporary  writer  says  that  only 
vanity  fails  to  gather  from  secondary  causes  the  same  lessons  as 
from  primary  causes  I" 

It  is  true  enough  that  we  need  the  staff  of  experience ;  we  must 
investigate  the  facts,  but  our  main  conclusion  will  be  the  result  of  a 
deduction  from  general  principles.  Who  for  instance  can  prove  the 
truth  of  evolution  from  experience?  How  is  it  possible  to  collect 
all  the  facts  in  question?  There  is  so  much  talk  about  the  missing 
link !  We  ought  to  bear  in  mind  that  if  one  link  in  the  chain  is  dis- 
covered there  are  others  missing.  In  all  scientific  reasoning  we  have 
to  employ  both  the  method  of  logic,  which  is  a  priori,  and  of  the 
facts  of  experience,  which  is  a  posteriori.  The  two  are  the  web 
and  woof  of  all  scientific  work  and  without  cither  our  endeavor  to 
widen  the  horizon  of  our  positive  knowledge  will  yield  no  profit. 

HIS  ARGUMENTS. 

Here  are  specimens  of  La  Mettrie's  arguments : 

"In  disease  the  soul  is  sometimes  hidden,  showing  no  sign  of 

life ;  sometimes  it  is  so  inflamed  by  fury  that  it  seems  to  be  doubled  ; 

sometimes,   imbecility   vanishes   anrl   the  convalescence  of  an    idiot 

produces  a  wise  man.     Sometimes,  again,  the  greatest  genius  be- 


/ 


/ 


I06  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

comes  imbecile  and  loses  the  sense  of  self.  Adieu  then  to  all  that 
fine  knowledge,  acquired  at  so  high  a  price,  and  with  so  much 
trouble !  Here  is  a  paralytic  who  asks  if  his  leg  is  in  bed  with  him ; 
there  is  a  soldier  who  thinks  that  he  still  has  the  arm  which  has  been 
cut  off.  The  memory  of  his  old  sensations,  and  of  the  place  to  which 
they  were  referred  by  his  soul,  is  the  cause  of  his  illusion,  and  of 
this  kind  of  delirium.  The  mere  mention  of  the  member  which  he 
has  lost  is  enough  to  recall  it  to  his  mind,  and  to  make  him  feel  all 
its  motions ;  and  this  causes  him  an  indefinable  and  inexpressible 
kind  of  imaginary  suffering.  This  man  cries  like  a  child  at  death's 
approach,  while  this  other  jests.  What  was  needed  to  change  the 
bravery  of  Caius  Julius,  Seneca.,  or  Petronius  into  cowardice  or 
faintheartedness?  Merely  an  obstruction  in  the  spleen,  in  the  liver, 
an  impediment  in  the  portal  vein.  Why?  Because  the  imagination 
is  obstructed  along  with  the  viscera,  and  this  gives  rise  to  all  the 
singular  phenomena  of  hysteria  and  hypochondria. 

"What  can  I  add  to  the  stories  already  told  of  those  who  imag- 
ine themselves  transformed  into  wolf-men,  cocks  or  vampires,  or  of 
those  who  think  that  the  dead  feed  upon  them?  Why  should  I  stop 
to  speak  of  the  man  who  imagines  that  his  nose  or  some  other  mem- 
ber is  of  glass?  The  way  to  help  this  man  regain  his  faculties  and 
his  own  flesh-and-blood  nose  is  to  advise  him  to  sleep  on  hay,  lest 
he  break  the  fragile  organ,  and  then  to  set  fire  to  the  hay  that  he 
may  be  afraid  of  being  burned — a  fear  which  has  sometimes  cured 
paralysis 

"As  the  motion  of  the  blood  is  calmed,  a  sweet  feeling  of  peace 
and  quiet  spreads  through  the  whole  mechanism 

"Is  the  circulation  too  quick,  the  soul  can  not  sleep.  Is  the 
soul  too  much  excited,  the  blood  can  not  be  quieted :  it  gallops 
through  the  veins  with  an  audible  murmur.  Such  are  the  two  oppo- 
site causes  of  insomnia 

"The  human  body  is  a  machine  which  winds  its  own  springs. 
It  is  the  living  image  of  perpetual  movement.  Nourishment  keeps 
up  the  movements  which  fever  excites.  Without  food,  the  soul  pines 
away,  goes  mad,  and  dies  exhausted 

"Pope  understood  well  the  full  power  of  greediness  when  he 
said: 

"  'Catius  is  ever  moral,  ever  grave. 
Thinks  who  endures  a  knave  is  next  a  knave, 
Save  just  at  dinner — then  prefers  no  doubt, 
A  rogue  with  ven'son  to  a  saint  without.' 


LA  METTRIE  S  VIEW  OF  MAN  AS  A  MACHINE.  IO7 

'Elsewhere  he  says : 

"  'See  the  same  man  in  vigor,  in  the  gout 
Alone,  in  company,  in  place  or  out. 
Early  at  business  and  at  hazard  late, 
Mad  at  a  fox  chase,  wise  at  a  debate, 
Drunk  at  a  borough,  civil  at  a  ball. 
Friendly  at  Hackney,  faithless  at  White  Hall.'. .. . 


"Raw  meat  makes  animals  fierce,  and  it  would  have  the  same 
effect  on  man 

"We  think  we  are,  and  in  fact  we  are,  good  men,  only  as  we 
are  gay  or  brave ;  everything  depends  on  the  way  our  machine  is 
running 

"In  general,  the  form  and  the  structure  of  the  brains  of  quadru- 
peds are  almost  the  same  as  those  of  the  brain  of  man ;  the  same 
shape,  tlie  same  arrangement  everywhere,  with  this  essential  differ- 
ence, that  of  all  the  animals  man  is  the  one  whose  brain  is  largest, 
and,  in  proportion  to  its  mass,  more  convoluted  than  the  brain  of 

any  other  animal Fish  have  large  heads,  but  these  are  void  of 

sense,  like  the  heads  of  many  men.  Fish  have  no  corpus  callosiim, 
and  very  little  brain,  while  insects  entirely  lack  brain 

"I  shall  draw  the  conclusions  which  follow  clearly  from  these 
incontestable  observations:  1st,  that  the  fiercer  animals  are,  the  less 
brain  they  have ;  2d,  that  this  organ  seems  to  increase  in  size  in 
proportion  to  the  gentleness  of  the  animal ;  3d,  that  nature  seems 
here  eternally  to  impose  a  singular  condition,  that  the  more  one 
gains  in  intelligence  the  more  one  loses  in  instinct. 

"Do  not  think,  however,  that  I  wish  to  infer  by  that,  that  the 
size  alone  oi  the  brain,  is  enough  to  indicate  the  degree  of  tameness 
in  animals ;  the  quality  must  correspond  to  the  quantity,  and  the 
solids  and  liquids  must  be  in  that  due  equilibrium  which  constitutes 
health. 

"If,  as  is  ordinarily  observed,  the  imbecile  does  not  lack  brain, 
his  brain  will  be  deficient  in  its  consistency — for  instance,  in  being 
too  soft.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  insane,  and  the  defects  of 
their  brains  do  not  always  escape  our  investigation.  But  if  the  causes 
of  imbecility,  insanity,  etc.,  are  not  obvious,  where  shall  we  look 
for  the  causes  of  the  diversity  of  all  minds?  They  would  escape 
the  eyes  of  a  lynx  and  of  an  argus.  A  mere  nothing,  a  tiny  fibre, 
something  that  could  never  be  found  by  the  most  delicate  anatomy, 
would  have  made  of  Erasmus  and  Fontenelle  two  idiots,  and  Fon- 
tenelle  himself  speaks  of  this  very  fact  in  one  of  his  best  dialogues." 


I08  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

MORALITY. 

In  comparing  the  morality  of  animals  and  men,  La  Mettrie 
censures  human  behavior,  for,  says  he, 

"Our  compatriots  fight,  Swiss  against  Swiss,  brother  against 
brother,  recognize  each  other,  and  yet  capture  and  kill  each  other 
without  remorse,  because  a  prince  pays  for  the  murder." 

He  has  an  excuse  for  criminals,  saying: 

"I  believe  and  admit  that  these  wretches  do  not  for  the  most 

part  feel  at  the  time  the  enormity  of  their  actions But  it  is 

much  to  be  wished  that  excellent  physicians  might  be  the  only 
judges If  crime  carries  with  it  its  own  more  or  less  cruel  pun- 
ishment, why  should  we  frighten  the  imagination  of  weak  minds 
by  a  hell?" 

La  Mettrie's  sarcasm  comes  out  in  his  presentation  of  the  case 
of  theism  vs.  atheism.  He  claims  to  be  the  skeptic  who  would  re- 
main impartial.  He  pretends  to  have  a  leaning  towards  theism  and 
introduces  his  atheistic  views  by  some  Pyrrhonian,  whom  he  inci- 
dentally calls  "this  wretch"  {cet  abominable  homme)  : 

"I  do  not  mean  to  call  in  question  the  existence  of  a  supreme 
being;  on  the  contrary  it  seems  to  me  that  the  greatest  degree  of 
probability  is  in  favor  of  this  belief.  But  since  the  existence  of  this 
being  goes  no  further  than  that  of  any  other  toward  proving  the  need 
of  worship,  it  is  a  theoretic  truth  with  very  little  practical  value. 
Therefore,  since  we  may  say,  after  such  long  experience,  that  re- 
ligion does  not  imply  exact  honesty,  we  are  authorized  by  the  same 
reasons  to  think  that  atheism  does  not  exclude  it 

"Let  us  not  lose  ourselves  in  the  infinite,  for  we  are  not  made 
to  have  the  least  idea  thereof,  and  are  absolutely  unable  to  get  back 
to  the  origin  of  things.  Besides  it  does  not  matter  for  our  peace 
of  mind,  whether  matter  be  eternal  or  have  been  created,  whether 
there  be  or  be  not  a  God.  How  foolish  to  torment  ourselves  so  much 
about  things  which  we  can  not  know,  and  which  would  not  make 
us  any  happier  even  were  we  to  gain  knowledge  about  them ! .  . .  . 

"I  do  not  take  either  side. 

"  'Non  nostrum  inter  vos  tantas  componere  lites.' 

"This  is  what  I  said  to  one  of  my  friends,  a  Frenchman,  as 
frank  a  Pyrronian  as  I,  a  man  of  much  merit,  and  worthy  of  a 
better  fate.  He  gave  me  a  very  singular  answer  in  regard  to  the  mat- 
ter. 'It  is  true,'  he  told  me,  'that  the  pro  and  con  should  not  disturb 
at  all  the  soul  of  a  philosopher,  who  sees  that  nothing  is  proved  with 


LA  METTRIE's  view  OF  MAN  AS  A  MACHINE.  lOQ 

clearness  enough  to  force  his  consent,  and  that  the  arguments  offered 
on  one  side  are  neutrahzed  by  those  of  the  other.  However,'  he 
continued,  'the  universe  will  never  be  happy,  unless  it  is  atheistic' 
Here  are  this  wretch's  reasons.  If  atheism,  said  he,  were  generally 
accepted,  all  the  forms  of  religion  would  then  be  destroyed  and  cut 
off  at  the  roots.  No  more  theological  wars,  no  more  soldiers  of  re- 
ligion— such  terrible  soldiers !  Nature  infected  with  a  sacred  poison, 
would  regain  its  rights  and  its  purity.  Deaf  to  all  other  voices, 
tranquil  mortals  would  follow  only  the  spontaneous  dictates  of  their 
own  being,  the  only  commands  which  can  never  be  despised  with 
impunity  and  which  alone  can  lead  us  to  happiness  through  the 
pleasant  paths  of  virtue. 

■'Such  is  natural  law :  whoever  rigidly  observes  it  is  a  good  man 
and  deserves  the  confidence  of  all  the  human  race.  Whoever  fails  to 
follow  it  scrupulously  affects,  in  vain,  the  specious  exterior  of  an- 
other religion ;  he  is  a  scamp  or  a  hypocrite  whom  I  distrust 

"We  do  not  seek  here  the  votes  of  the  crowd.  Whoever  raises 
in  his  heart  altars  to  superstition,  is  born  to  worship  idols  and  not 
to  thrill  to  virtue. 

"But  since  all  the  faculties  of  the  soul  depend  to  such  a  degree 
on  the  proper  organization  of  the  brain  and  of  the  whole  body,  that 
apparently  they  are  but  this  organization  itself,  the  soul  is  clearly 
an  enlightened  machine.  For  finally,  even  if  man  alone  had  received 
a  share  of  natural  law,  would  he  be  any  less  a  machine  for  that?" 

HIS  CONCLUSION. 

La  Mettrie's  conclusion  is  this: 

'"The  soul  is  therefore  but  an  empty  word,  of  which  no  one  has 
^  any  idea,  and  which  an  enlightened  man  should  use  only  to  signify 
I  the  part  in  us  that  thinks.  . .  .He  is  to  the  ape,  and  the  most  intelli- 
gent animals,  as  the  planetary  pendulum  of  Huyghens  is  to  a  watch 

of  Julien  Leroy I  believe  that  thought  is  so  little  incompatible 

with  organized  matter,  that  it  seems  to  be  one  of  its  properties  on 
a  par  with  electricity,  the  faculty  of  motion,  impenetrability,  exten- 
tension,  etc." 

As  to  our  destiny  after  death  La  Mettrie  again  introduces  a 
bit  of  sarcasm  and  under  the  pretext  of  skepticism  argues  in  favor 
of  the  possibility  of  immortal  machines.  Stating  that  "we  know 
absolutely  nothing  about  the  subject,"  he  continues: 

"To  assert  that  an  immortal  machine  is  a  chimera  or  a  logical 
fiction,  is  to  reason  as  absurdly  as  caterpillars  would  reason  if,  see- 


( 


I  lO  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

ing  the  cast-off  skins  of  their  fellow-caterpillars,  they  should  bitterly 
deplore  the  fate  of  their  species,  which  to  them  would  seem  to  come 
to  nothing.  The  soul  of  these  insects  (for  each  animal  has  its  own) 
is  too  limited  to  comprehend  the  metamorphoses  of  nature.  Never 
one  of  the  most  skilful  among  theni  could  have  imagined  that  it  was 
destined  to  become  a  butterfly.  It  is  the  same  with  us.  What  more 
do  we  know  of  our  destiny  than  of  our  origin  ?  Let  us  then  submit 
to  an  invincible  ignorance  on  which  our  happiness  depends." 

It  is  worth  while  noticing  that  the  practical  application  of  his 
views  comes  ultimately  to  the  same  kind  of  ethics  that  religious 
people  would  preach. 

"On  the  other  hand,  there  is  so  much  pleasure  in  doing  good, 
in  recognizing  and  appreciating  what  one  receives,  so  much  satis- 
faction in  practising  virtue,  in  being  gentle,  humane,  kind,  chari- 
table, compassionate  and  generous  that  I  consider  as  sufficiently 
punished  any  one  who  is  unfortunate  enough  not  to  have  been  born 
virtuous 

"He  who  so  thinks  will  be  wise,  just,  tranquil  about  his  fate,  and 
therefore  happy.  He  will  await  death  without  either  fear  or  desire, 
and  will  cherish  life  (hardly  understanding  how  disgust  can  corrupt 
a  heart  in  this  place  of  many  delights)  ;  he  will  be  filled  with  rev- 
erence, gratitude,  affection,  and  tenderness  for  nature,  in  proportion 
to  his  feeling  of  the  benefits  he  has  received  from  nature ;  he  will 
be  happy,  in  short,  in  feeling  nature,  and  in  being  present  at  the 
enchanting  spectacle  of  the  universe,  and  he  will  surely  never  destroy 
nature  either  in  himself  or  in  others.  More  than  that !  Full  of  hu- 
manity, this  man  will  love  human  character  even  in  his  enemies. 
Judge  how  he  will  treat  others.  He  will  pity  the  wicked  without 
hating-  them ;  in  his  eves,  thev  will  be  but  mis-made  men.  But  in 
pardoning  the  faults  of  the  structure  of  mind  and  body,  he  will 
none  the  less  admire  the  beauties  and  virtues  of  both ....  and  fol- 
lowing the  natural  law  given  to  all  animals,  he  will  not  wish  to  do 
to  others  what  he  would  not  wish  them  to  do  to  him. 

"Let  us  then  conclude  boldly  that  man  is  a  machine,  and  that 
in  the  whole  universe  there  is  but  a  single  substance  differently 

modified Such  is  my  system,  or  rather  the  truth,  unless  I  am 

much  deceived.    It  is  short  and  simple.    Dispute  it  now  who  will." 


EXTRACTS  FROM  PROF.  W.B.  SMITH'S  ARTICLE 

"PUSH?  OR  PULL?"^ 

LAPLACE   BELIEVES    IN   ABSOLUTE   DETERMINISM. 

LAPLACE  has  rightly  declared  that  a  sufificiently  powerful  human 
^  intellect  armed  with  differential  equations  and  an  absolutely  ex- 
haustive knowledge  of  the  physical  universe  at  any  stage  of  its  be- 
ing, could  thence  deduce  its  necessary  and  certain  condition  for  any 
and  all  future  times,  or  that  knowing  one  moment  completely 
he  would  know  or  at  least  be  able  to  find  out  all  the  history  of  the 
interminable  ages  to  come.  Such  an  intelligence  has  been  called 
a  Laplacian  intelligence,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  man  should 
pride  himself  on  the  creation  or  at  least  the  possession  of  such 
stupendous  powers  of  prophecy,  of  which  he  does  indeed  make  bril- 
liant use  in  forecasting  eclipses  and  other  phenomena  exactly,  to  the 
second.  Similarly,  he  vaunts  that  he  could  predict  the  exact  spot, 
the  exact  speed,  direction,  and  acceleration  of  each  and  every  mole- 
cule now  in  our  bodies,  not  for  a  day  or  week  or  year,  but  for  all 
the  a;ons  of  everlasting  Time.  . .  . 

When  now  we  ask  how  we  know  that  all  this  is  true,  that  To- 
day and  To-morrow  are  thus  despotically  dominated  by  Yesterday, 
that  some  single  push  from  behind  has  propagated  itself  like  an 
ether  wave  through  all  the  world  and  determined  all  that  is  or  has 
been  or  will  be,  the  answer  seems  at  first  utterly  inadequate.... 
When  we  ask  how  we  know  that  A's  movement  caused  B's,  we  are 
dumb.... The  most,  the  best,  the  last  that  we  can  know,  is  that 
the  one  event  followed  the  other  in  this  case,  and  similarly  in  all 
hitherto  observed  cases,  and  we  may  believe  ever  so  confidently  and 
unshakably  that  such  a  relation  will  always  hold  good.  But  the 
causal  tie  we  shall  never  perceive,  we  shall  never  know  that  there 
is  any  at  all. 

'  Dr.  Smith's  article  will  he  found  in  full  in  T/te  Monist,  of  January,  1913. 


I 


112  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 


CAUSE  AND  EFFECT  "DO  NOT  EVEN  TOUCH  HANDS." 

In  a  passage  that  has  become  classic,  Kirchhoff  declared  even 
as  long  ago  as  1877  that  mechanics  is  the  science  of  motion,  its 
problem  being  to  describe  the  motions  of  nature  completely  and  in 
the  simplest  way.  You  observe  that  there  is  no  reference  here  to 
cause  or  to  effect  or  even  to  force.  The  motions  in  nature  from  the 
rush  of  a  planet  to  the  vibrations  of  a  molecule,  are  to  be  described 
completely  and  simply,  as  a  dance  of  atoms,  where  the  motions  and 
evolutions  of  each  dancer  are  highly  complicate  and  intricate  and 
definitely  related  to  those  of  every  other,  yet  each  carries  on  its  own 
dance,  and  naught  is  said  of  one's  affecting  another.  It  is  not  a 
waltz,  they  do  not  even  touch  hands ....  You  may  see  the  ball  A 
strike  upon  the  ball  B,  and  see  this  latter  speed  away,  but  you 
know  that  the  motion  of  the  one  had  naught  to  do  with  the  motion 
of  the  other. 


LIFE   LOSES   ITS   MEANING. 

Can  this  be  all?  What  possible  even  least  worth  or  meaning 
or  self-justification  can  there  be  in  a  course  of  history  that  is  born 
from  chaos  and  dies  in  chaos,  to  be  re-born  from  chaos  again? 
Of  what  avail  for  Nature  to  mount  from  her  funeral  pyre  and  soar 
and  shine  in  everlasting  cycle,  if  only  to  sink  back  again  in  night 
and  death,  like  a  succession  of  aimless  rockets  shot  up  into  the 
empty  dark  ? .  . .  . 

Whether  puny  man  be  satisfied  with  this  procedure  of  Nature, 
makes  no  difference ;  she  is  utterly  devoid  of  feeling  and  cares  not 
a  straw  for  all  the  men  in  the  world.  Sauve  qui  pent  is  her  motto. 
Such  is  "natural  selection,"  the  "survival  of  fhe  fittest,"  where  there 
is  absolutely  no  standard  or  evidence  of  fitness  but  the  fact  of  sur- 
vival. This  survivor  is  one  of  the  fittest.  How  do  you  know?  Be- 
cause he  has  survived ;  therefore  he  must  have  been  fitter  than  those 
who  did  not  survive .... 

This  appalling  conception  of  history  is  the  unavoidable  con- 
sequence of  any  and  every  theory  that  accepts  the  outward  universe 
at  its  face-value,  as  an  ultimate  reality,  that  thinks  the  world  under 
the  category  of  causality,  that  seeks  to  understand  the  Present  and 
the  Future  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  Past.  The  whole 
doctrine  is  in  the  last  degree  logical,  it  has  achieved  great  triumphs 
in  the  annals  of  thought,  and  it  may  very  profitably  be  entertained 


FROM    PROF.   W.   B.   SMITH's   "PUSH  ?  OR  PULL?"       11^ 



as  merely  provisional,  as  a  directive  or  working  hypothesis,  as  an      ^ 
outward  sensual  symbolism  of  an  inward  spiritual  truth.     But  as 
the  truth  itself,  as  the  final  word  in  world-interpretation,  no  matter 
by  what  high-placed  prophets  it  may  be  preached,  we  must  reject 
it  utterly,  not  only  as  false,  but  also  as  an  abomination. 

THE  FUTURE   DETERMINING   THE   PRESENT. 

We  cannot  start  Nature  out  totally  blind,  acting  perfectly  at 
random,  otherwise  she  could  never  select  at  all,  having  no  principle 
of  selection.  Even  in  her  most  elementary  processes  there  must  be 
some  choice,  some  preference  for  this  rather  than  that.  Otherwise  ' 
why  should  Newton's  gravitation  take  place  according  to  inverse 
squares  rather  than  inverse  cubes?.... A  choice  cannot  refer  to 
what  has  been  or  is,  but  only  to  what  shall  be.  By  the  fittest  we 
do  not  mean  the  fittest  for  the  Past  but  for  the  Future ;  if  not  fittest 
for  the  Future,  it  will  not  survive.  We  may  see  then  that  the  con-  » 
ception  of  a  blind  or  aimless  nature-process  is  not  ultimately  realiz- 
able in  thought .... 

Let  any  one  ask  himself  why  he  is  present  at  a  certain  lecture. 
If  he  gives  the  answer  in  terms  of  the  Past,  in  terms  of  push,  in 
terms  of  matter  or  of  mass  and  motion,  all  of  which  expressions  are 
equivalent,  then  he  has  no  choice.... It  is  a  matter  of  immediate 
knowledge,  as  primary  as  primary  can  be,  that  no  possible  assign- 
ment of  causes,  of  antecedent  conditions,  can  ever  satisfy  the  ques- 
tioner, who  is  seeking  for  reasons  and  not  causes.  Still  further, 
observe  that  the  only  satisfying  answer  will  be  in  terms  of  the  Fu- 
ture, and  not  of  the  Past.  The  man  will  say,  "I  desired  to  hear  and 
see  something  or  somebody."  At  each  instant  the  desire  was  a 
present  experience,  but  the  thing  desired  was  and  remains  from  first 
to  last  in  the  Future.  . .  .It  is  a  tug  from  before,  not  a  thrust  from 
behind ;  it  is  the  pull  of  the  Future,  not  the  push  of  the  Past.  . . . 

We  find  finally  but  one  Reason  in  a  million  forms  and  a  thou- 
sand degrees.  It  is  Will,  Desire,  Wish,  Want,  Appetite,  Craving, 
Yearning,  Impulse,  Instinct,  Life-urge,  or  what  you  will.... 

So  far  as  we  can  see,  the  Past  has  for  it  no  existence  whatever. 
It  may  indeed  sound  strange  thus  to  speak  of  the  Future  as  solely 
determining  the  Present,  since  we  are  so  used  to  speak  of  the  Past 
as  the  sole-determiner.  And  yet  such  is  the  unique  form  of  inner 
experience.  Peer  as  deeply  and  as  fixedly  as  you  will  into  the 
abysses  of  your  own  being,  you  shall  always  find  therein  that  it  is 


[ 


/ 


) 


114  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

all  and  only  the  Future  that  determines  and  in  a  way  creates  the 
Present.  At  every  instant  the  Past  crumbles  into  nothingness  under 
our  feet  and  we  flee  from  it  as  from'  a  levee  sinking  into  the  Missis- 
sippi, while  the  eternal  Future,  like  the  eternal  Feminine,  draws  us 
upward  and  on ...  . 

We  may  say  then  that  it  is  To-morrow  and  not  Yesterday  that 
makes  To-day  what  it  is.  In  itself  it  is  no  more  and  no  less  plau- 
sible that  the  Future  than  that  the  Past  should  determine  the  Pres- 
ent; but  the  undeniable  Fact  is  that  the  determinant  is  the  Future 
and  not  the  Past. 


THE  TWO  VIEWS  CONTRASTED. 

Here  then  are  the  wide  world-views  contrasted.  On  the  side 
of  matter,  of  cause  and  effect,  the  universe  is  one  immeasurable 
Memory.  On  the  side  of  mind,  of  purpose  and  aim,  it  is  one  un- 
bounded Hope ....  During  the  marvelous  nineteenth  century,  the 
emphasis  fell  with  a  heavy  and  heavier  stroke  upon  the  Past.  The 
key-note  of  this  wondrous  orchestration  was  given  by  Goethe  in  his, 
deep-thoughted  oracle:  "The  question  for  natural  science  is  not 
what  use  have  oxen  for  their  horns,  but  how  did  they  come  by 
them?"  Here  all  reference  to  the  future  is  ruled  out  decisively;  the 
forward  gaze  of  mind  is  denied  all  recognition,  the  category  of 
purpose  is  struck  out  of  our  thinking.  The  only  question  is  one 
of  cause  and  effect;  the  Laplacian  intelligence  builds  up  backward, 
backward  forever,  and  forward  interminably,  but  notice  wherewith 
it  builds.  Only  with  the  ashes  of  extinct  volcanoes.  Never  at  any 
point  can  it  insert  purpose  or  aim  or  meaning  into  its  sublime  con- 
struction ;  never  can  it  even  raise,  much  less  answer,  the  question, 
Why?  There  was  in  fact  no  why,  no  reason  for  aught  in  this 
endless  history 

It  is  a  false  antagonism  between  the  causative  and  the  teleo- 
logical  conceptions  of  the  universe.  Willingly  we  surrender  the 
world  of  matter  to  the  despotism  of  the  Past,  to  the  tyranny  of 
causality,  to  the  blind  predestination  of  the  primal  Push.  For  we 
know  that  this  world  is  only  a  kinematographic  representation  of 
the  eternal  life  of  the  spirit,  the  only  ultimate  reality.  Willingly 
we  admit  that  there  is  no  end  nor  aim  nor  purpose  in  the  blinding 
storm  of  the  atomic  world,  for  we  know  that  the  Kingdom  of  Ends 
is  within  us.  It  is  in  the  conscious  and  no  less  in  the  unconscious 
life  of  the  soul  that  we  find  the  Future  sole-reigning,  that  we  behold 


FROM   PROF.   W.   r.,   smith's   "pUSH  ?  OR  PULL?"      II5 

unveiled  the  face  of  the  everlasting  Striving,  that  we  feel  the  pull 
of  the  increasing  purpose  of  the  universe.  From  this  point  of  view 
we  shall  be  able  to  solve  many  antinomies,  to  reach  out  the  hand  of 
sympathy  and  friendship  to  warring  champions  of  opposing  doc- 
trines. . .  . 

It  is  the  end,  the  aim,  that  rises  before  us  as  guiding  star  in 
this  twentieth  century  interpretation  of  history,  yea.  we  may  indeed 
proclaim,  "The  Kingdom  of  Ends  is  drawn  nigh." 


THE  SPIRIT  IN  THE  WHEELS:  THE  MECHAN- 
ISM OF  THE  UNIVERSE  AS  SEEN 
BY  A  THEIST. 

DR.  BIXBY'S  BOOK. 

DR.  James  Thompson  Bixby  has  published  under  the  title  The 
Open  Secret  a  book  which  he  characterizes  a"A  Study  of  Life's 
Deeper  Forces,"^  and  the  first  problem  he  attacks  is  the  question  of 
vitality  and  mechanism.  All  other  problems  which  he  discusses  are 
mere  side  issues.  They  are  treated  in  nine  more  chapters  entitled : 
The  Cosmic  Motor  Power,  Atom  and  Spirit,  Purpose  in  Nature, 
Law  and  Providence,  Good  the  Final  Goal,  Fate  or  Choice,  Our  Self- 
Made  World,  Partners  in  World-Making,  Search  the  Deep  Things. 

Dr.  Bixby  is  a  theist;  he  recognizes  the  significance  of  mech- 
anism, but  takes  his  stand  on  vitalism.  He  finds  the  most  appro- 
priate allegory  for  his  view  in  Ezekiel's  vision  of  the  winged 
cherubim,  which  has  been  called  the  "spirit  of  the  living  creatures 
in  the  wheels."  He  grants  that  the  mechanics  of  these  wheels  is 
impossible,  nevertheless  the  general  idea  symbolized  by  this  vision 
is  not  merely  quite  rational  but  most  significant  and  instructive. 

Dr.  Bixby  continues :  "The  essential  lesson  of  the  vision  is  that 
every  living  creature  has  around  him  some  revolving  machinery, 
and  that  within  all  the  mechanical  wheel-works  which  are  visible 
there  is  a  living  soul  as  the  motor  power  and  directing  agency  of 
the  enclosing  enginery." 

Dr.  Bixby's  book  is  written  from  the  standpoint  of  an  advanced 
teleology.  The  author  is  sufficiently  acquainted  with  modern  sci- 
ence to  understand  the  scientific  position  and  states  it  in  fairness 
and  without  animosity ;  yet  he  condemns  it  not  only  as  utterly 
wrong,  but  also  as  chilling  our  faith  and  as  dangerous. 

We  will  here   state  Dr.   Bixby's  position  in  his   own   words 

*  Published  by  the  American  Unitarian  Association,  Boston,  1912. 


THE  SPIRIT   IN  THE  WHEELS.  II7 

without  any  criticism  on  our  part,  referring  our  readers  to  our  own 
solution  of  the  same  problem  presented  in  the  editorial  article  on 
mechanicalism. 

THE  CONTRAST  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  VIEWS. 

"To  the  chanters  of  the  Vedas  every  flickering  flame  was  a 
living  creature,  an  appearance  of  Agni,  the  fire  god ;  the  Greeks 
beheld  in  every  rustling  tree  a  dryad,  in  every  babbling  fountain 
a  water  nymph.  The  prevalent  faith  of  all  the  early  nations,  as 
of  savages  to-day,  was  similar.  Sun  and  moon,  cloud  and  storm, 
evening  breeze,  each  had  its  impelling  divinity.  Each  spirit  fol- 
lowed his  own  caprice  on  the  impulse  of  the  moment.  Nowhere 
was  there  any  fixed  order.  With  the  ascent  of  thought  to  the 
higher  faith  of  monotheism,  the  only  change,  for  a  long  time,  was 
that  every  catastrophe  or  trouble  was  interpreted  as  a  retribution 
sent  from  the  Supreme  God  upon  the  sufferer  for  some  known  or 
secret  sin.  Life  was  a  succession  of  special  providences,  and  the 
career  of  every  prophet  or  saint  a  series  of  signs  and  wonders,  mani- 
festing the  direct  intervention  of  the  Most  High. 

"Our  modern  thought,  however,  has  gone  to  the  very  opposite 
extreme.  No  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth ;  the  wildest  gust  has 
its  appointed  course  from  which  it  cannot  swerve. 

"By  uniform  laws,  every  continent  has  been  moulded  and  up- 
lifted. By  simple  processes  of  variation,  struggle  for  existence 
and  accumulation  of  hereditary  gains,  the  rudimentary  creatures 
have  developed  into  complex  and  elaborate  organisms.  In  all  these 
diverse  species,  in  all  their  ingenious  organs  and  vital  adjustments, 
in  the  rise,  growth  and  decay  of  nations,  and  in  the  most  astonish- 
ing coincidences  of  personal  or  social  events,  modern  science  sees 
only  the  products  of  that  great  machine-shop  of  interacting,  un- 
resting wheels  of  law  and  force  that  we  call  nature." 

IN  THE  NEW  VIEW  THERE  IS  NO  ROOM  FOR  GOD. 

"The  natural  result  of  this  extension  of  the  network  of  law 
and  its  mechanical  processes  over  the  whole  universe  is  at  first 
most  chilling  to  faith.  When  the  believer  who  has  been  brought 
up  in  the  common  conception  of  the  Deity  as  a  vague  presence 
immensely  greater  than  man,  but  with  the  personal  loves  and  dis- 
likes, moods  of  wrath,  pity,  imperfect  counsels,  changeable  pur- 
poses and   incomplete  forethought  which  are  characteristic  of  hu- 


/ 


Il8  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

manity — when  such  a  behever,  I  say,  comes  by  scientific  investiga- 
tion to  abandon  these  ideas,  what  a  loss  he  feels !  In  what  a 
freezing  waste  and  friendless  world  he  seems  to  find  himself.  Hav- 
ing always  thought  of  God  as  the  great  intervener  and  repairer  of 
the  cosmic  system,  manifest  in  every  mystery  or  eccentricity  of  the 
processes  of  nature,  this  reduction  of  the  perturbations  and  irregu- 
larities of  the  world  to  mechanical  laws  seems  to  banish  God  from 
the  universe ....  God  has  seemed  to  be  pushed  outside  the  verge  of 
his  own  universe  and  made  henceforth  a  superfluous  hypothesis." 

THE  MACHINERY  OF  LIFE. 

"The  very  condition  of  vitality  seems  to  be  this  constant  rotary 
motion.  In  man,  the  blood  under  the  unwearied  beat  of  the  heart 
must  course  out  to  the  capillaries  and  brain  cells  with  its  fresh  sup- 
plies of  nutriment  and  energy  and  must  then  flow  back  again  to 
the  lungs  to  become  purified  and  recharged  with  oxygen.  The  nerve 
currents  must  flow  with  their  sense  impressions  from  the  surface 
up  the  sensory  nerves  to  the  brain  and  back  again  in  appropriate 
motor  responses  to  the  muscles.  In  lung,  heart,  ganglion,  blood 
corpuscle,  cell  and  molecule,  there  is  a  constant  round.  There  is 
continual  efllux  and  influx,  consumption  and  replenishment.  It  is 
only  by  this  ceaseless  dying  and  as  ceaseless  rebirth,  that  animate 
beings  keep  alive. 

"And  to  maintain  this  circulation  of  life,  what  curious  and 
complicated  machinery  in  every  part  of  the  body — the  valves  of 
the  heart,  the  batteries  of  the  brain,  the  triangular  muscle  of  the 
chin,  the  levers  of  arm  and  leg,  with  their  beautiful  ball  and  socket 
joints,  the  keyboard  of  the  ear  with  its  three  thousand  strings,  and 
the  hundred  other  equally  ingenious  contrivances  that  make  up 
this  moving  house  of  flesh,  most  of  them  working  so  automatically 
and  perfectly  that  it  is  only  on  the  occasions  that  they  get  out  of 
order  that  man  takes  any  thought  of  the  complicated  mechanisms 
and  delicate  adjustments  by  which  he  walks  and  talks  and  breathes. 

"In  former  days  life  and  mind  were  fancied  to  be  powers  only 
loosely  connected  with  the  grosser  flesh  into  which  they  were  in- 
jected. But  the  investigations  of  modern  physiologists  have  shown 
the  connection  of  the  vital  and  mental  with  their  material  organs 
to  be  of  the  closest  kind.  . .  . 

"Even  the  mind  is  dependent  on  its  wheels,  its  nervous  mechan- 
ism.    Slice  oflf,  layer  by  layer,  a  pigeon's  brains  and  in  the  same 


THE  SPIRIT  IN  THE  WHEELS.  I IQ 

measure  you  pare  oflf  its  power  of  feeling  and  of  thought.  Each 
of  our  senses — sight,  hearing,  smell,  language — has  its  respective 
brain-center.  Cut  out  this  cerebral  seat  and  the  corresponding 
faculty  disappears.  . .  . 

"AH  these  mechanical  conditions  of  life  have  to  be  admitted 
by  the  candid  mind.  It  is  only  in  the  minute  and  curious  detail 
into  which  modern  research  has  pushed  its  probe  that  there  is  any- 
thing new  in  this  line  of  facts.  The  essential  truth  that  a  sound 
mind  always  depends  upon  a  sound  body  has  been  acknowledged 
for  centuries. 

"But  equally  true  and  equally  to  be  acknowledged  is  the  con- 
verse— that  for  the  body's  soundness  and  activity  there  is  needed  a 
healthy  and  active  spirit ;  it  is  equally  evident  that  flesh  needs  soul 
as  much  as  soul  needs  flesh. 

"The  materialist,  concentrating  his  attention  solely  on  the 
mechanical  side  of  life,  of  which  I  have  been  speaking,  would  pre- 
sent this  as  the  sum  total  of  vital  existence.  Animals  and  men,  the 
lowest  star  fish  and  the  greatest  of  poets,  (he  tells  us)  are  all  just 
so  many  machines.  The  food  supply  determines  the  egg  and  the 
egg  produces  the  bird  or  bee.  As  are  the  respective  environments, 
sense-impressions  and  links  of  association,  so  must  be  the  man's 
ideas. 

"  'Without  phosphorous  no  thought,'  was  the  favorite  adage  of 
the  German  man  of  science,  Moleschott.  According  to  naturalistic 
monism,  every  act  is  predetermined  by  its  conditions  before  it  arises. 
Free  choice  is  a  myth,  and  an  idea  not  generated  or  conditioned  by 
the  physical  environment  is  a  chimera.  He  who  is  most  confident 
of  the  dominant  power  to  direct  his  course  is  the  veriest  bit  of  drift- 
wood in  the  eddies  of  inevitable  destiny. 

"Such  are  the  superficial  dicta  of  the  materialists,  . .  .If  it  [the 
body]  is  an  engine,  then  it  is  one  that  contains  within  an  automatic 
registry  of  the  experience  of  its  ancestors  for  centuries ;  and  as 
Prof.  J.  Arthur  Thomson  says:  'It  is  a  self-stoking,  self- repairing, 
self-preservative,  self-adjusting,  self-increasing,  self-reproducing 
engine.'  " 

MIND  INDEPENDENT  OF  THE  MACHINERY. 

"Who  ever  knew  a  machine  to  mend  its  own  breaks  and  re- 
plenish its  own  wastes?  It  is  by  this  super-mechanical  power,  ever 
superintending,  remaking  and  over-ruling  the  ordinary  chemic  and 


J 


120  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 

physical  tendencies  that  would  disintegrate  its  parts,  that  every  ani- 
mate organism  lives .... 

"The  mind  has  a  power  independent  of  the  forces,  whether 
material  or  social,  pressing  upon  it,  that  may  properly  be  called  'the 
sovereignty  of  the  self  in  willing,'  Behind  all  the  cerebral  machin- 
ery there  hide,  as  the  main  spring  that  moves  it,  those  noble  powers 
by  which  man  is  a  living  soul  and  a  child  of  God 

"Physical  force  is  a  constant  quantity.  But  the  moral  power 
of  the  still  small  voice  draws  aid  from  an  inexhaustible  source  to 
supply  whatever  energy  it  needs  to  overcome  the  tide  of  temptation. 

"The  limited  outer  view  of  things  that  leads  so  many  to  a 
materialistic  solution  of  the  great  'World  Riddle'  is  as  superficial 
as  it  is  depressing." 

THE   EXPLANATIONS   OF   MATERIALISM   INSUFFICIENT. 

"Candid  Christian  thought  must  admit  the  mediation  of  these 
mechanisms  and  wheels — the  wheel  of  evolution,  the  wheel  of  hered- 
ity, of  struggle  for  existence,  of  physical  conditions  and  environ- 
ment, of  unbroken  order.  But  scientific  thought,  if  that  also  is  can- 
did, must  recognize  the  living  spirit  within  the  wheels  as  even  more 
essential.  , .  . 

"The  materialist  who  explains  life  and  thought  and  all  the 
other  thousand  wonders  of  the  world  as  but  re-arrangements  of  an 
original  stock  of  energy  and  motion  in  the  primal  nebula  only  ac- 
counts for  the  continuance  of  the  world's  activities  in  some  shape 
or  other.  This  account  does  not  explain  the  wise  and  orderly  direc- 
tion and  harmony  of  these  activities.  To  account  for  that  we  must 
have  a  sufficient  wisdom  and  beneficence  in  the  First  Cause 

"That  which  makes  evolution  a  process  of  real  progress,  not  a 
mere  swinging  round  the  circle,  is  the  progressive  saturation  of 
matter  by  spirit  which  it  exhibits 

"In  the  processes  of  evolution  it  is  the  influences  from  a  higher 
plane  that  especially  accelerate  the  development  of  life.  How  slow 
was  the  upward  climb  of  the  vegetable  kingdom  while  its  progress 
was  carried  forward  chiefly  by  the  influence  of  the  environment, 

fortuitous  variation  and  natural  selection But  when  the  higher 

forces  of  animal  desire  and  visual  pleasure  and  esthetic  taste  came 
to  act  upon  it,  as  bee  and  moth  and  butterfly  became  intermediaries 
in  the  work  of  vegetable  union  and  reproduction,  what  an  amazing 
diversity  of  form  and  glory  of  adornment,  and  what  rapid  ascent  in 
complex  organization  took  place!.  .  .  .If  the  soul  of  animal  and  man 


THE  SPIRIT  IN  THE  WHEELS.  121 

has  done  so  much  in  evolution,  how  much  more  ought  we  to  credit  to 
the  over-soul? 

"When  the  air  plant,  hung  up  in  a  room,  gains  weight  and 
substance,  we  know  there  must  be  in  the  air  itself  a  source  of  nutrient 
supply.  So  when  the  minds  of  men  grow  and  burgeon  without 
visible  feeding,  we  know  it  is  by  drawing  in  and  assimilating  the 
invisible  spiritual  nutriment.  It  is  this  continuous  communion  of 
the  finite  with  the  infinite  that  we  call  revelation 

"We  feel  justified  in  saying  that  feeling,  will  and  thought 
will  be  found  behind  all  the  physical  processes  of  the  world  as 
their  cause  and  essence.  It  is  not  because  of  certain  breaks  in 
the  chain  of  causality,  certain  gaps  in  the  line  of  development 
of  the  animal  world,  or  certain  missing  links  between  the  brute 
and  man  that  materialism  is  unsatisfactory  and  that  physical  na- 
ture demands  a  God  to  supplement  its  insufficiencies.  It  is  for 
far  profounder  reasons :  it  is  because  all  order  implies  reason ;  all 
change  implies  force ;  all  force  implies  will.  The  great  tree  of  life 
should  ever  be  thought  of  as  an  endogenous  organism,  growing  not 
from  without  inward,  but  from  within  outward 

"The  omniscience  of  the  Infinite  One,  by  its  wise  provisions, 
by  its  skilful,  automatic  self-adjustments  and  by  the  transforming 
power  of  the  soul's  chemistry,  provides  for  the  good  of  all  his  crea- 
tures. Love  everywhere  hides  within  these  laws.  Its  pains  are  but 
danger  signals ;  its  penalties  are  correctives.  This  changeless  provi- 
dence, hurting  us  only  when  we  transgress  the  divine  laws,  works  4 
ever  for  greater  good.  This  rigid  uniformity  and  intermediate 
machinery  which  we  are  obliged  to  master  is  the  means  of  our  edu- 
cation and  spiritual  development. 

"In  our  personal  life  and  in  our  interpretation  of  nature  the 
secret  of  peace,  power  and  knowledge  lies  in  recognizing  these  two 
complementary  facts — the  outer  mechanism  and  the  inner  life." 

THE  GOD   PROBLEM. 

"What  is  the  motor  power  that  has  carried  the  world  forward 
through  these  countless  and  constant  changes?.... 

"Matter  has  no  power  to  move  itself.  It  possesses  no  spon- 
taneity of  action.  An  essential  idea  of  matter,  necessary  to  all 
scientific  dealing  with  it,  is  that  of  its  inertness.  If  a  mass  of  matter 
could  start  itself  into  motion,  or  bring  itself  to  a  halt,  or  alter  the 
direction  of  its  motion  without  the  action  of  something  outside  of 
itself,  no  science  of  it  would  be  possible." 


122  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THEISM  ANSWERED. 

"If  the  world  (as  a  scientific  friend  incisively  asked  me)  had 
a  creator,  or  its  organic  forms  were  moulded  into  their  present 
shapes  and  conditions  by  a  reasonable  being,  would  he  begin  to 
make  a  one-toed  horse  by  first  making  a  five-toed  creature  that 
climbed  trees?  To  produce  a  hen,  would  he  start  out  by  making 
eggs?  Or  when  this  creative  power  wished  to  make  a  man,  would 
he,  instead  of  aiming  and  working  directly  toward  the  goal,  begin 
at  the  bottom  of  the  biologic  series  by  making  an  ascidian  and  then 
change  it  into  a  lemurine  creature  or  some  other  lower  animal  and 
then  transform  that  into  a  simian,  and  so,  by  a  lengthy  circuit, 
develop  the  human  being,  retaining  in  him  numerous  survivals  of 
his  past  which  now  are  apparently  quite  useless? 

"These  satiric  queries  are  undoubtedly  telling.  But  do  they 
necessarily  compel  us  to  infer  absence  of  purpose,  which  is  the  con- 
clusion drawn  by  Professor  Haeckel? 

"How  is  it  with  a  large  part  of  the  most  rationally  planned 
human  work?  Does  it  not  accomplish  its  purpose  by  decidedly 
circuitous  methods?  It  is  notorious  how  the  iron-moulder  begins 
by  making  the  sand  matrix  and  then  breaks  it  and  throws  it  away. 
The  engineer  who  builds  a  stone  arch,  first  puts  up  the  false  timber 
work  and  then,  when  he  has  got  his  stones  in  place,  pulls  down  his 
first  wooden  structure.  Shall  we  say  that  the  engineer  and  the 
iron-moulder  have  no  plan?.  . .  .In  our  English  language  how  many 
silent  letters  are  there,  of  no  use  whatever  except  as  historic  monu- 
ments of  the  former  spelling  and  the  course  of  linguistic  develop- 
ment! 

"Shall  we  say  therefore  that  there  is  no  purpose  in  the  work 
of  the  tailor  and  printer  and  that  intelligence  has  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  evolution  of  language  or  costume?  Is  it  not  possible  that 
the  intelligence  that  works  in  nature  may  have  a  similar  historic  or 
esthetic  sentiment?  Is  it  not  possible  that  the  divine  mind  (like 
human  minds)  may  choose  to  make  circuits  provided  he  can  thereby 
accomplish  his  ends  more  easily?.  . .  . 

"For  my  part,  I  do  not  see  why  a  theist  who  maintains  that  the 
facts  of  nature  bespeak  intelligence  in  their  source  is  obliged  to 
maintain,  also,  that  nature  is  as  yet  a  completed  work  or  that  the 
mind,  immanent  in  our  part  of  the  cosmos  and  guiding  it,  is  om- 
niscient. 


THE  SPIRIT  IN  THE  WHEELS.  1 23 

"While  the  theist  beheves  in  the  existence  of  a  supreme  being, 
he  may,  without  inconsistency,  suppose  that  the  actual  world-build- 
ing of  our  solar  system  may  have  been  delegated  to  some  subordinate 
divinity,  who,  though  superhuman  and  wondrously  wise  and  skilful, 
was  not  either  all-wise  or  all-powerful.  At  least,  the  thinker  who 
has  become  an  evolutionist  will,  if  he  is  consistent,  never  regard  that 
stage  and  state  of  nature  in  which  we  now  live  as  a  finished  result 
beyond  which  there  is  to  be  no  more  progress." 


A  WORTHY  CONCEPTION  OF  GOD. 

"For  the  full  satisfaction  of  the  religious  instincts,  God  himself 
should  be  recognized  as  having  direct  participation  in  the  operations 
of  the  world.  The  spiritual  emotions  require  a  present  and  active 
God,  not  an  absentee  ruler.  Our  religious  intuitions  can  no  more 
tolerate  the  idea  that  the  power  governing  the  universe  should  be 
blind  or  subconscious  than  the  reason  can  tolerate  that  conception 
of  it  that  makes  it  capricious  and  arbitrary.  Only  a  conscious  divine 
love  and  life  can  claim  the  spirit's  loyalty  and  be  recognized  by  the 
human  soul  as  sufficiently  superior  to  itself  to  be  worthy  of  worship. 
The  idea  of  the  world  as  a  titan  machine,  started  and  left  to  itself, 
is  inconsistent  with  any  elevated  idea  of  God 

"Science  is  daily  coming  more  and  more  to  the  conviction  that 
the  cosmos  is  (to  use  Humboldt's  striking  phrase)  'a  living  whole,' 
an  organism  everywhere  throbbing  with  vital  power  and  sensibility 
struggling  for  its  unfolding  into  breathing,  knowing  creature  forms. 
....The  dynamic  source  of  this  ceaseless  transformation  play  is 
a  grand  energy,  more  than  physical,  ever  acting,  out  of  an  exhaust-- 
less  life,  and  from  this  higher  fountain  sending  down  the  streams  of 
vitality  which  circulate  through  all  the  veins  of  the  vast,  out-spread- 
ing cosmos.  But  energy,  according  to  the  testimony  of  our  most 
eminent  philosophers  and  men  of  science,  we  know  only  as  connected 
with  conscious  effort,  the  push  or  the  resistance  of  the  will.  Thus 
at  length  the  vast  universe,  in  all  its  changing  states,  its  varied  phe- 
nomena and  processes,  is  found  to  be  a  manifestation  of  personal 
volition  and  the  action  of  that  guiding  mind  without  which  there 
can  be  no  pressure,  effort  or  direction.  As,  then,  we  have  to  sup- 
pose that  this  guiding  mind  and  energizing  will  pervade  the  cosmos 
wherever  energies  act,  of  whom  else  can  they  be  the  attributes  than 
of  the  One  only  Infinite — the  omnipresent  God?" 


124  THE  MECHANISTIC  PRINCIPLE. 


THE  MELANCHOLY  TEACHING  OF  TO-DAY. 

"The  older  and  sterner  forms  of  Christian  theology,  by  their 
dogmas  of  predestination  and  man's  natural  inability,  have  been  ter- 
ribly discouraging  to  human  efforts,  at  least  in  the  moral  field 

For  many  long  generations  these  theological  dogmas  lay  like  iron 
fetters  on  the  mind  of  man,  chaining  the  will  and  hardening  the 
heart.  Though  in  many  quarters  they  still  remain,  happily  they  are 
now  fast  dissolving  beneath  the  sunlight  of  modern  thought. 

'But  as  these  bonds  are  losing  their  power,  modern  science 
and  philosophy  are  forging  new  chains,  subtler  still.  From  all 
sides,  descend  about  us  the  steel  wires  inscribed :  'Circumstances 
make  the  man.'  Every  act,  we  are  told,  is  the  inevitable  outcome 
of  its  preceding  condition.  Every  seeming  choice  is  the  compulsion 
of  the  stronger  motive.  Free-will  is  an  illusion,  exploded  now  by 
science.  Crime  and  vice  have  their  averages  calculated  by  the  statis- 
tician. There  were  so  many  hundred  murders,  so  many  thousand 
cases  of  arson  or  embezzlement  in  each  of  the  last  ten  years.  There 
will  be  again  the  same  number  on  the  average  in  the  next  ten  years. 
Virtue  and  vice  are  therefore  subject  to  fixed  laws  and  physical 
causes,  like  the  return  of  winter  and  summer.  They  are  'merely 
products  of  nature,'  as  Taine  says,  'just  like  sugar  and  vitriol.' 

"The  corroding  influence  of  this  growing  materialism  affects 
all  the  departments  of  Hfe.  It  dissolves  the  sense  of  obligation  and 
snatches  the  crown  from  virtue  to  put  it  on  the  heads  of  fact  and 
force 

"Against  this  reduction  of  humanity  to  a  helpless  victim  of 
circumstances  every  virile  human  being  ought  vigorously  to  protest. 
The  soul  of  man  is  more  than  its  conditions.  The  human  will  is 
the  helm  of  everv  human  course. 

"Do  not,  however,  misunderstand  me.  I  do  not  mean  that  hu- 
man volition,  even  the  most  resolute,  can  do  anything  that  it  desires. 
Our  will  is  by  no  means  wholly  free.  The  term  'free  will'  describes 
clumsily  and  inexactly  the  great  truth  that  it  aims  to  express.  The 
truth  would  be  better  described  as  the  mastership  of  the  mind  in 
choosing  and  willing." 

MR.  BIXBY  A  DUALIST. 

We  will  here  make  one  comment  only  on  Mr.  Bixby's  advanced 
view  of  the  old  conception  of  teleology.  Mr.  Bixby  is  still  a  dualist. 
He  extols  the  spirit  that  resides   in  the  wheels  and  regards  the 


THE  SPIRIT  IN  THE  WHEELS.  125 

mechanism  of  the  machinery  which  the  spirit  utilizes  as  something 
alien  to  spirit.  We  believe  that  both  spirit  and  machine  are  one, 
and  the  universal  dominance  of  the  laws  of  form  determining  the 
detailed  uniformities  of  motion,  commonly  called  mechanics,  is  by 
no  means  a  depressing  or  melancholy  thought.  The  laws  of  form 
are  the  very  means  in  which  spirit  reveals  itself.  The  human  mind 
is  a  product  of  these  laws  and  their  eternality  may  very  well  be 
conceived  as  God  immanent  in  the  cosmos,  as  the  divinity  which 
rules  its  destinies,  as  the  spirit  in  the  wheels.  Keep  in  mind,  how- 
ever, that  there  are  not  two  things,  the  spirit  and  the  wheels,  but 
there  is  one  reality.  The  cosmic  order  conceived  as  the  norm  of 
all  motions  is  the  spirit,  and  the  details  of  its  actualization  are  the 
wheels.  Every  detailed  piece  of  its  mechanism  is  a  direct  mani- 
festation of  the  spirit.  * 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Fii^P  i  -^  ^f,*^ 


PSD  2343    9/77 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  491  105    3 


158  00905  196 


